BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Redfern Inquiry

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report, dated 16 November 2010, of the Redfern Inquiry into human tissue analysis in UK nuclear facilities.- (Mr Goodwill.)

Mr Speaker: I should like to make a short statement following the announcement from Clarence house today of the engagement of Prince William to Miss Catherine Middleton. I am sure that Members from both sides of the House will join me in congratulating the couple on this most happy occasion, and wishing them all the very best for their future together.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked-

Office of Tax Simplification

Michael Ellis: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Office of Tax Simplification.

George Osborne: May I add my congratulations to the couple and say that we wish them every happiness? I am not sure that they will be particularly interested in this answer, but I hope that the House will be.
	The Office of Tax Simplification was created by the coalition Government in July to reduce the complexity of a tax code that has doubled in size over the past decade. Last week, the office produced a comprehensive list of the 1,042 reliefs that now exist in the tax system. By the time of next year's Budget, we will have received its advice on which reliefs can be simplified or abolished to be consistent with the Government's wider objectives.

Michael Ellis: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing the Office of Tax Simplification. He will be aware that the tax system in this country is labyrinthine in its complexity, and small businesses in my constituency of Northampton North have been adversely affected by it. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the new Office of Tax Simplification will sort out this complexity sooner rather than later?

George Osborne: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. A few months ago, he and I visited some small businesses in his constituency, many of which were suffering under the burden of a tax code that has grown from 4,900-odd pages in 1997 to 11,500 pages today. The Office of Tax Simplification is specifically looking at the taxation of small businesses as well as at the issue of tax reliefs. The small business report will be coming out later next year, but we will get an interim report in time for the Budget.

Alan Johnson: I add the congratulations of this side of the House to Prince William and Catherine Middleton on their engagement. If they need a photographer, I understand that there is one available now. There has been a nice juxtaposition of announcements this morning. Does the Chancellor think that he is aiding tax simplification by raising VAT to a nice round 20%, and does he agree with his Cabinet colleague, the Business Secretary, who once described an increase in VAT as
	"a tax on the poor to absolve the sins of the rich." ?

George Osborne: I have to say to the shadow Chancellor that his position on VAT is completely incoherent. It is well known that my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), was planning a VAT increase, had pressed the Prime Minister at the time for a VAT increase, and-he is in the Chamber so perhaps he can confirm this-when asked about it on "The Andrew Marr Show" after the election, said that of course he would have gone ahead with one.

Alan Johnson: That was not the question. The fact that one looks at every available tax before reaching a conclusion is nothing new. The conclusion we reached is that VAT should not be increased and that national insurance should be. The Liberal Democrats have been very fair in the way that they have betrayed the electorate. They have broken promises across the age divide-children, students and pensioners-so there is no age discrimination there. The Conservatives specifically said that they would not increase VAT. During the election campaign, we said that if they did not increase national insurance, they would increase VAT. The Prime Minister denied that and said that they had no plans to increase VAT. He said that VAT was
	"very regressive, it hits the poorest the hardest".
	I can promise Members that it does. We are now in the unique situation in which we face a tax rise that our Prime Minister has promised will affect "the poorest the hardest". At the time, the Conservatives said that an increase in national insurance would be "a tax on jobs". The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said that it would lead to 75,000 jobs being lost while an increase in VAT would cost 250,000 jobs.

Mr Speaker: Can we have a question from the shadow Chancellor?

Alan Johnson: Why is the Chancellor proceeding with this tax on jobs that hits the poorest the hardest?

George Osborne: This is what the former Chancellor said on "The Andrew Marr Show". Andrew Marr said:
	"We now read from Peter Mandelson's book"-
	remember, he was in the Cabinet with the shadow Chancellor-
	"that you were quite keen on the idea of VAT going up."
	Alistair Darling replied, "Well yeah, obviously".
	We have taken the decisions necessary to restore some fiscal credibility to this country. We have a leaked memo from the shadow Chancellor's office. It states:
	"Fiscal discipline is if anything more essential in opposition than it is in government."
	That is from the shadow Chancellor's office, but the truth is that he cannot tell us where a penny of his £44 billion spending cuts would come from. He had two tax policies until the weekend-on graduates and 50p-and announced that he did not agree with them. Frankly, until he gets his act together and comes forward with a credible economic policy, he will not be heard.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. From now on, first of all, exchanges must be shorter. Secondly, let it be clear beyond doubt that Ministers answer for the policies of the Government, not for those of the Opposition. That is the end of the matter.

Pensioners (Fiscal Assistance)

Nigel Adams: What fiscal measures he has introduced to provide assistance for pensioners since his appointment.

George Osborne: With your permission, Mr Speaker, if I dare ask for it, I should like to answer this question with questions 6 and 7.

Helen Grant: What fiscal measures he has introduced to provide assistance for pensioners since his appointment.

Nick de Bois: What fiscal measures he has introduced to provide assistance for pensioners since his appointment.

George Osborne: Even in these constrained times, the coalition Government have been able to find additional assistance for pensioners. We have re-linked the basic state pension to earnings and provided a triple guarantee that the basic state pension will be raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5% from next April. We have also protected other key pensioner benefits and made the previous Government's temporary pre-election increase in cold weather payments permanent, because this Government treat pensioners with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

Nigel Adams: I am grateful to the Chancellor for that reply. Many pensioners and those approaching pension age in my constituency of Selby and Ainsty will welcome his words, but will he tell me what will be the impact in future years of the link to earnings in respect of the basic state pension?

George Osborne: First, next year, the pension will be linked to the retail prices index number for September-4.6%. That will be a welcome support for pensioners from April. However, I should make the broader point that of course, re-linking pensions and guaranteeing through our commitment that they will go up either in line with earnings or prices, or by 2.5%, is a really substantial boost for pensioners. That reflects the fact that many pensioners have worked hard and saved hard all their lives. I am glad that that was one of the first policy announcements of this coalition Government.

Helen Grant: What fiscal action will the Chancellor take to assist voluntary sector organisations, which do so much to help our pensioners?

George Osborne: The spending review set out a £470 million package of support for the voluntary sector, including an endowment fund and a transition fund. In addition, the big society bank, which will be funded by dormant bank accounts, will provide a new source of finance for the sector. The Government completely understand the incredible role that such organisations play in supporting elderly people in our community, and we want to help them to do so.

Nick de Bois: Many pensioners in my constituency have made representations to me because they are fed up with having to buy annuities at 75. What plans does the Chancellor have to change the flexibility of that policy?

George Osborne: We will remove the requirement to purchase an annuity by the age of 75. Draft legislation will be published in December, and we want the new rules in place by 2011, although we have also introduced transitional arrangements to help those who have reached the age of 75 since I made the announcement in the Budget. We think that people who have been responsible enough to save through their working lives are responsible enough to handle their savings in retirement.

Kate Green: Will the Chancellor commit to working closely with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) to introduce the universal, flat-rate, minimum pension for all citizens as quickly as possible?

George Osborne: Yes, absolutely. The Treasury is working with the Department for Work and Pensions on potential pension reform that could simplify pensions and provide a boost to pensioners for many years to come.

Tony Lloyd: Pensioners, including many of those on low incomes, spend a disproportionate amount of their income on fuel. The Chancellor made the point about the winter fuel allowance, which was very welcome, but will he make it clear to the gas and electricity suppliers that, when they raise fuel costs above anything justified by wholesale prices, as they always do, the Government will take action, hopefully by threatening them with fiscal measures, including taxing them?

George Osborne: I agree with part of what the hon. Gentleman said. It is important that the utility companies-the gas companies-are as quick to pass on to their customers the cuts in the wholesale price of gas as they seem to be in passing on increases. We are looking at the whole electricity market-because, of course, many pensioners receive their heating through electricity-and considering what we can do to better insulate people from price fluctuations that can cause havoc to family budgets.

Child Trust Funds

Bill Esterson: How many child trust funds have been set up in respect of looked-after children since such funds were introduced.

Justine Greening: Local authorities report to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs all children coming into their care, and if a child does not already have a child trust fund, one is opened for them. Between April 2005 and April 2009, HMRC opened child trust fund accounts for 16,676 children.

Bill Esterson: Does the Minister agree that improving the life chances of all looked-after children should be an absolute priority for the Government, and will she consider supporting the amendments tabled to the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill that address the issue of child trust funds for looked-after children?

Justine Greening: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are taking legislation through the House to get rid of the child trust funds. We think it is vital to support looked-after children, but the question is how best to do that while also tackling our fiscal deficit. We have come to the conclusion that what looked-after children need is support today, and that is what we will provide. Over the spending review period, £7 billion will go to supporting the most disadvantaged children in our country, including looked-after children. He will be aware that in the Department for Education, Eileen Munro is leading an inquiry into how social care can work better, including the support of looked-after children, and finally he will be aware that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will be considering proposals to bring forward a junior individual savings account, from which we will specifically ensure that looked-after children can benefit.

George Freeman: Does the Minister agree that it is appallingly disingenuous of Labour Members to posture as the friends of child savings, having left every man, woman and child in this country with debts of more than £22,000 each?

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister, who is a dexterous Minister, will relate her answer to the policy of the Government, not that of the Opposition.

Justine Greening: I think it is a shame. The best thing we can do for all our children, including looked-after children, is to build a stronger country in which they can grow up and enter the workplace. I am afraid that it simply is not good enough to duck the serious questions of the day, which include sorting out not only our economy, but our broken welfare system, which does those looked-after children no service either.

David Hanson: Will the Minister take time to remind the House of the Government's manifesto commitment in the May general election to retain the child trust fund for the poorest third of children in society? Does she accept that looked-after children predominantly will fall into that poorest third? Will she therefore consider the amendments to the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill so that she can meet her manifesto commitments, or will it be a case, again, of hitting the poorest hardest?

Justine Greening: I do not accept that we did not follow our manifesto commitment. The House had another difficult debate on Second Reading of the Bill, and yet again the Labour party seemed to want simply to ignore the challenges that our country faces. In doing so, it does the public a disservice.

Tax Evasion and Avoidance

David Ward: What the evidential basis is for his Department's estimate of the additional tax revenue to accrue by 2014-15 from expenditure on measures to address tax evasion and avoidance, and fraud and debt.

David Gauke: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs routinely measures and monitors various performance matrix, including yield-to-cost ratios and a number of statistical models. These were used as part of the spending review process to estimate the effect of investing resource to support its compliance strategy. On the basis of this analysis, HMRC estimates that the additional expenditure of £900 million over the spending review period will result in an extra £7 billion of yield per year by 2014-15.

David Ward: I thank the Minister for his answer. I guess that Members from both sides of the House would welcome the £900 million sprat that is being used to catch a £7 billion mackerel. However, I understand that the £42 billion gap caused by avoidance, evasion and fraud still exists. Are the Government doing enough, and do we need to do more?

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight that issue. We think that the number is very high and that it is possible to find savings in HMRC's budget. However, there have been specific proposals for where HMRC has identified that it could recover large levels of yield, and this Government have been happy to provide the funding to do that.

Kerry McCarthy: I am sure that the Government will be aware of the growing public outrage at the fact that a company such as Vodafone seems to have been able more or less to decide the size of its own tax bill, and, in doing so, is rumoured to have avoided a sum as high as £6 billion. Do the Government agree that we need far more transparency and accountability when it comes to such backroom deals with large companies, or are we now entering a world where only the little people pay their taxes?

David Gauke: This Government are determined to crack down on tax evasion and tax avoidance, but the Vodafone deal was a matter for HMRC, and it is right that the Government are not involved in such negotiations. I hope that the hon. Lady will not be aligning herself with those involved in campaigns to close down Vodafone shops. The fact is that companies should pay the correct amount of tax, but she should not believe everything she reads.

David Ruffley: Tax avoidance and tax evasion would be less prevalent if we had a simpler and fairer tax system. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider following the policy of the noble Lord Lawson, which was to abolish complicated tax breaks in order to finance lower marginal rates.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As a Government, we are cutting the rate of corporation tax, from 28% to 24%, which is the lowest rate that we have ever had in this country.

Credit Rating Agencies

Chuka Umunna: What steps he is taking to review the regulation of credit rating agencies.

Mark Hoban: The coalition Government support greater regulation of credit rating agencies. The credit rating agency regulation came into force in the EU, including in the UK, on 7 December 2009. The UK authorities continue to be active in both the EU and G20 processes, including in negotiations on amending the credit rating agency regulation and in examining ways to reduce our reliance on credit ratings for regulatory and official purposes.

Chuka Umunna: These obviously follow on from the proposals of Jacques de Larosière. One problem that has been identified with the rating agencies is the conflict of interest issue. I think that we should move to a "buyer pays" model. The other issue is a lack of competition in the credit ratings market. Michel Barnier, the EU Commissioner, has floated the idea of having an EU credit rating agency, which I think is a thoroughly good idea. Does the Minister agree?

Mark Hoban: Of course there are areas where more work needs to be done, and the hon. Gentleman is right that Michel Barnier has made further proposals, in a consultation paper that he published earlier this year. They included looking at the business models for credit rating agencies. However, I question whether taxpayers in Europe would feel it right that their money should be going to fund credit rating agencies.

Andrew Bridgen: Is it not a cause for cautious optimism that agencies such as Fitch, Moody's and Standard & Poor's have now given the UK such an excellent credit rating?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it just goes to show that credit rating agencies do not get it wrong all the time. In May, Standard & Poor's put the UK's credit rating on a "negative outlook", as a consequence of the previous Government's policies. However, in October it said that
	"the coalition parties have shown a high degree of cohesion in putting the U.K.'s public finances onto what we view to be a more sustainable footing."
	We welcome those comments.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Philip Davies: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in reducing the budget deficit.

Danny Alexander: The Office for Budget Responsibility will update its forecast of the deficit on 29 November, taking into account the spending review. Other assessments have backed the Government's plans, with the International Monetary Fund, for example, stating that our consolidation plan
	"greatly reduces the risk of a costly loss of confidence in fiscal sustainability and will help rebalance the economy".
	That backs our view that the spending review was fair and supports growth.

Philip Davies: One of the big winners from the comprehensive spending review was, of course, the European Union. The EU has not had its accounts signed off by auditors for 16 years running, so if the Government are looking for a popular way to reduce the deficit, may I suggest that they go to the EU and say that it will not get another penny-piece out of the UK until it has had its accounts signed off?

Danny Alexander: Of course, the European Court of Auditors report, which fails to qualify the accounts for the 16th year in succession, is disappointing, as my hon. Friend observes. We will continue to champion reform through engagement with European institutions and other member states. It is worth him bearing in mind that the Government's most important priority for the forthcoming budget negotiations is to reduce and to keep under control the EU budget, not just next year, but in subsequent years, in recognition of the fact that many EU countries are facing tough financial circumstances, as we are.

Angela Eagle: The Chancellor's reckless choice to cut deep and fast at home means that UK jobs and growth are now reliant on achieving booming exports on a scale not seen for more than 60 years. We know that Europe is our single largest export market. Will the Minister share with the House the latest evidence of the growth of demand in that market?

Danny Alexander: There is evidence of export growth in many sectors of the economy, and the Government have played a significant role in promoting exports, as the recent trade delegation to China showed. The hon. Lady has a poor record of predicting the economy. In April 2008, she was engaged in a debate that observed that there was an extreme bubble in the housing market. She described that as a "colourful and lurid fiction" that
	"has no bearing on the macro-economic reality."-[ Official Report, 2 April 2008; Vol. 474, c. 825.]
	I would rather take the forecast of the Office for Budget Responsibility than hers.

Andrew Tyrie: The CSR is virtually silent on privatisation's contribution to reducing the deficit. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that those receipts, which normally score in the accounts as negative spending, as he knows, will, when they come, be additional to and not a substitute for the spending reductions already announced in the CSR?

Danny Alexander: I can confirm that.

Andrew Love: The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has revised upwards its forecast of the number of jobs lost in the public sector. It also suggests that the VAT increase will raise unemployment in the private sector. Reputable forecasting organisations, including the CBI, suggest that there will be an increase in unemployment overall in the next year. Does the Chief Secretary now accept that unemployment will increase as a result of the CSR, and is that why the Government have bumped off the autumn forecast of the OBR to the end of this month?

Danny Alexander: I am content to rely on the forecast of the independent Office for Budget Responsibility, which forecasts a reduction of 490,000 over the next four years in the head count in the public sector, but a net increase of jobs in the private sector of 1.6 million, leading to additional jobs being created in the economy. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will look forward, as I do, to its forecast on 29 November.

Bank Lending (Businesses)

Brian Binley: What recent steps he has taken to increase levels of bank lending to small and medium-sized businesses.

George Osborne: The Government have increased and extended the enterprise finance guarantee to support lending to small businesses. We have increased our share of the enterprise capital fund to enable extra investment in start up for small businesses, and we have encouraged the new business growth fund set up by the banks. But more needs to be done to ensure that the banks are lending to small and medium-sized businesses. It is a complex issue with no single answer, but it is crucial to our recovery, and my hon. Friend has my assurance that this is a key priority.

Brian Binley: I thank the Chancellor for that answer. Lionverge, a Northampton company employing 80 people, had an overdraft with Barclays of £70,000, backed by security of £130,000. A new manager was recently appointed, and in August he wrote to the company doubling the security, and cutting the overdraft by £20,000 with further cuts of £10,000 a month to end the facility. The company had not defaulted, no warning was given, and no other options were offered. What can the Chancellor do to stop such unacceptable bank practices that undermine the Government's growth strategy?

George Osborne: I recently met the leading chief executives of our largest banks, and they have come forward with proposals to improve the way they treat their customers, and to increase their lending to small businesses. We welcome the fund that they have set up. As I said, there is still more to do. The issue is complex, and one complexity has been the uncertainty of international regulation and how much capital and liquidity banks need. At the G20 that took place recently in South Korea, there was at last agreement on the new international rules, and a very lengthy transition period to them. I hope that British banks will take heed of that, and as a result, be able to increase their lending to small businesses.

Christopher Leslie: Why is the Chancellor so afraid to make the banks play their full part in picking up the mess that they created? He has refused to do anything about the excessive bonuses, and we read in the paper that he is about to U-turn on the publication of remuneration. We also read that he is climbing down on the bank levy and, in his answer to the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), he is now suggesting that it is too complex to make the banks lend to small businesses. The Government are not afraid to hit children and families with cutbacks, but if we are all in this together, why is the Chancellor letting the banks off the hook?

George Osborne: One does wonder where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past couple of years. We are picking up the pieces of the biggest banking crash of our lifetimes, caused by the poor regulation of the previous Government. Since coming to office, we have announced major changes in regulation, putting the Bank of England in charge-which we still do not know whether the Opposition support-and a permanent bank levy, which was opposed by every single Labour Member during the general election. We are determined to sort out the problems left to us by the previous Government.

John Thurso: The enterprise finance guarantee scheme was specifically designed to help small businesses to get bank finance. It has not worked, and many companies feel that it has not assisted them. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that the scheme plays a full part in helping companies to get finance?

George Osborne: The first thing that I would say to my hon. Friend is that, of all the schemes that we inherited, this was the one that we thought had the most chance of improvement and was worth investing in. The other schemes had almost no take-up, but this one did. We were able to provide some additional money for it in the Budget, in the form of £200 million to support additional lending. We are also introducing changes to the way the schemes work, so that there will be a limit of 20 business days that all major lenders taking part in the enterprise finance guarantee scheme will have to comply with, so that people are not left on the hook waiting for an answer.

Personal Saving

Stephen Mosley: What steps he has taken to encourage saving since the June 2010 Budget; and if he will make a statement.

Mark Hoban: The Government want to build a savings culture based on the principles of freedom, fairness and responsibility, and we are committed to creating conditions for higher saving. We have already announced a number of measures, including the annual financial health check and an end to the effective requirement to purchase an annuity with tax relief pension savings at the age of 75. We will also increase the amount that can be paid into ISAs each year in line with inflation from April 2011.

Stephen Mosley: Recent research from  Which? has highlighted the fact that savers are missing out on £12 billion a year by keeping their money in accounts that pay extremely low rates of interest. Would my hon. Friend consider encouraging banks to print the interest rate on bank statements in the same way that credit card companies have to print the rate that they charge on their statements, in order to help savers to identify whether they are getting a good deal from their bank account?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to ensure that savers have the information that they need to enable them to shop around and find the best possible deal. ISA providers have already agreed to disclose interest rates on their statements, and the Financial Services Authority is consulting on extending that duty to other savings accounts.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister will be aware that the savings ratio is forecast to fall in every single year until 2015. Does this not make the decision to abolish the child trust fund-a savings plan with a 74% voluntary take-up rate-all the more short-sighted?

Mark Hoban: The problem with the child trust fund is that there was no evidence to demonstrate that it increased savings across the economy. We are faced with a difficult decision: we need to find savings to tackle the budget deficit that we inherited, and we believe that the best thing to do is to give help to families now rather than locking that money away until the children are 18.

Private Sector Growth Trends

Julian Smith: What assessment he has made of the effect on the economy of recent trends in growth in the private sector.

Justine Greening: This Government have been determined to show that Britain is back open for business, and gross domestic product growth has been strong over the past two quarters. That growth has been driven largely by the private sector. The Office for Budget Responsibility, which this Government established, is responsible for producing independent economic and fiscal forecasts, and the Chancellor has asked the OBR to publish a new forecast on 29 November. That forecast will incorporate the OBR's assessment of the effect on the economy of recent trends of growth in the private sector.

Julian Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hundreds and thousands of new jobs that have been created by the private sector in recent months make the outlook pretty positive? What encouragement would she give to budding young entrepreneurs in Yorkshire in existing businesses who are thinking of taking on a new employee?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right. In quarter two alone, private sector employment grew by 308,000. I believe that many people in the country want not just to take jobs, but to create them. I would encourage them to get on with it, and to pursue their dreams and aspirations. They will have a Government behind them who are giving them a national insurance holiday for the jobs that they will create, and who are determined to support them by keeping corporation tax rates low when they are successful.

Geraint Davies: Given that Government plans to cut half a million public sector jobs are expected to lead to the cutting of a further 1 million private sector jobs, does the Minister accept that it would be more effective to reduce the deficit in three ways-through progressive taxation, through economic growth and through savings-than simply to throw millions of people on to the dole and whole communities into poverty?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman seems to have managed to get from a reduction of half a million in the public sector head count to millions on the dole. The number that he cited is in the independent report from the Office for Budget Responsibility, which was published after our emergency Budget. Although the report showed that there would be a reduction in the public sector head count of about 490,000, it also showed-and I assume that the hon. Gentleman accepts all of it-that there would be an increase in employment of 1.6 million, and that, year on year, there would be reductions in unemployment and increases in employment. If he accepts the figure of half a million, does he also accept those figures?

Margot James: I congratulate the Government on extending the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, but I note that it is closed to companies that export because of our over-zealous application of European Union state aid rules. Can my hon. Friend update the House on any plans that the Government have to overcome that obstacle to the achievement of our exporters' growth potential?

Justine Greening: We are examining ways in which we can help our UK companies to export more easily. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have already led delegations to two key markets, China and India, where we hope that we can export more. That is critical if we are to put our economy back on its feet and it stands alongside the measures that we are taking to support companies creating jobs here, and the measures that we are taking to encourage investment in our country.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Katy Clark: What assessment has been made of the likely effects on Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs' tax inquiry services for the public of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review.

David Gauke: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs is currently reviewing options for delivery of the tax inquiry services that it provides through its network of inquiry centres, contact centres and online services over the next spending review period. HMRC is committed to providing services that are cost-effective and also meet the needs of its customers.

Katy Clark: We have already seen a reduction of 25,000 staff and 200 collection offices, which must result in a worse service to the public. We are also seeing cuts in the amount of money spent on dealing with tax avoidance and evasion. The Minister's colleague mentioned an extra £900 million, but we have been told that that is not additional money, and that less money is actually being spent on dealing with tax collection. Is it not time that we prioritised not only giving a better service, but collecting more tax?

David Gauke: That money is new investment to tackle tax avoidance and evasion. It is specific, targeted funding. As for the service that is provided, it is right for HMRC's service to adapt to the way in which customers change their behaviour. We have seen a 40% reduction in the number of people using inquiry centres over the last four years, and HMRC should of course adapt to that.

Andrea Leadsom: Recent press reports have suggested that there are many so-called zombie households in the United Kingdom, in which families have got themselves into so much debt that they rely on interest rates remaining low to stay afloat. Does my hon. Friend agree that our policies to keep interest rates low, and to enable the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee to keep them low, are key as we go through a critical period in our recession?

Mr Speaker: A sentence from the Minister in reply will suffice, as the question is about tax inquiry services. We are grateful to him.

David Gauke: Let me put it this way: we would have a lot more inquiries if taxes were going up, which is the policy the Opposition advocate.

EU Budgetary Rebate

Peter Bone: What assessment he has made of the effects on his Department's ability to reduce the deficit of the reduction in the UK's EU budgetary rebate; and if he will make a statement.

Justine Greening: The latest forecast of the UK contribution to the EU budget shows that the UK abatement will decline from £5.6 billion in financial year 2008-09 to £2.8 billion in financial year 2010-11. The Office for Budget Responsibility will publish new projections of the UK contribution to the EU budget, including the abatement, in its autumn forecast.

Peter Bone: Under the previous Labour Government our total net contribution to the EU was £19.8 billion; under the coalition Government it will be £41 billion. Will the British people not think it bizarre, bewildering and a betrayal that over half the money saved by cuts will go not to reduce the deficit, but to subsidise other western European countries?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right that alongside the domestic economic mess we inherited, we also inherited an EU budget deal that was completely out of touch with the situation faced by many European countries. The fall in our abatement is largely due to the give-away agreed by the previous Government in 2005, which will be fully phased in from 2011. It is expected to cost the UK about £2 billion per annum. That is £2 billion that was needlessly given away for absolutely nothing in return-yet another failing of the British people by the Labour party.

Child Benefit

Nicholas Dakin: What mechanism he plans to use to ensure that households which include one or more higher rate taxpayer cease to receive child benefit payments.

David Gauke: From January 2013 Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will withdraw child benefit from higher rate taxpayers using PAYE and self-assessment systems. The vast majority of claimants will continue to receive child benefit, and will not be affected by this change.

Nicholas Dakin: Earlier this year, the Prime Minister said he wanted this Government to be the most family-friendly Government we have ever had in this country. How does this proposal support a family where one partner stays at home to look after the children while the other partner earns over £45,000 a year?

David Gauke: It does families and everyone else in this country no good if we do not get to grips with the fiscal crisis. If the Opposition are saying households paying higher rate income tax should continue to receive child benefit while those who do not earn so much contribute towards that, it once again shows that they are not getting to grips with the scale of the crisis.

Richard Graham: Does the Minister agree that the logic of the policy outlined by Opposition Members is that any child from Prince William and Catherine Middleton would benefit from child tax benefit, whereas the poorest of my constituents would not?

Mr Speaker: Members really should not refer to members of the royal family in questions. That is strongly to be deprecated, and it certainly should not happen again. I ask the Minister to give a very brief reply.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is perhaps getting a little ahead of himself. I think all we should say is that should that happy eventuality occur, I am sure he or she will get by without child benefit.

Redundancy and Retraining Costs

Diana Johnson: What estimate he has made of the cost to the Exchequer of redundancy and retraining requirements arising from implementation of proposals contained in the comprehensive spending review.

Danny Alexander: The total cost of work force reforms will depend on the decisions of hundreds, if not thousands, of employers up and down the country. Detailed decisions regarding the number of redundancies and the associated costs that may be required have yet to be finalised in most cases, so it would not be appropriate for the Treasury to speculate on any aggregate numbers at this stage.

Diana Johnson: In the police service alone, major job losses are already being announced, such as in the west midlands, Greater Manchester and Lincolnshire, so not only will there be up-front redundancy costs, but there will be the loss of skills and experience. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the cost of redundancies could be as high as £8 billion?

Danny Alexander: I have to say that that sounds like rather an overestimate, but the hon. Lady is right to say that employers are spelling out their own plans for redundancies and for managing their work force in an appropriate way. I recognise that many staff will be very concerned about that, but I believe that it is right that they hear about specific plans from their own management, rather than draw conclusions from higher level aggregate numbers.

Government Deficits

Glyn Davies: What recent discussions he has had with his international counterparts on the co-ordination of efforts to reduce Government deficits.

Justine Greening: The UK has been actively engaged in G20 discussions. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor attended the G20 summit on 11 and 12 November, which delivered the Seoul action plan and pledged to continue co-ordinated efforts to generate strong, sustainable and balanced growth. In this action plan, the advanced economies committed to
	"formulate and implement clear, credible, ambitious and growth-friendly medium-term fiscal consolidation plans in line with the Toronto commitment, differentiated according"-
	of course-
	"to national circumstances."

Glyn Davies: Bearing in mind reports of continuing threats to some of our EU partners, does the Minister agree that the International Monetary Fund's recent growth forecasts underline the need for an ambitious and credible strategy for dealing with the budget deficit?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is right about that. The IMF clearly supported the efforts that the coalition Government have been making both in the emergency Budget and the spending review to get to grips with the terrible fiscal deficit handed over by the previous Government. The OECD also welcomed the balance that we struck in the spending review between not only protecting growth, but tackling debt.

David Simpson: Can the Minister confirm that the international counterparts discussed the subject of the Republic of Ireland, its deficit and the possible EU bail-out for it? Will that cost the United Kingdom money?

Justine Greening: At this stage, we cannot speculate about other countries' finances. Obviously, the Irish are taking very difficult decisions and actions to try to get the situation under control. I do not think that we should pre-empt actions that Ireland or any other country takes and the impact that such actions may ultimately have on the UK taxpayer.

Topical Questions

Mary Glindon: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

George Osborne: The purpose of the Treasury is to ensure economic stability, restore sanity to the public finances, ensure employment growth, make sure our banking system is properly regulated and get this country back on its feet.

Mary Glindon: During the past five years, North Tyneside council has made year-on-year transformation savings without affecting front-line posts, but I fear that because of the comprehensive spending review front-line jobs will now be lost. What message, other than fictitiously blaming the previous Labour Government for what has been a global recession, does the Chancellor have for North Tyneside?

George Osborne: First, the Government have given all councils, including North Tyneside, greater freedom about how to spend their resources by removing a lot of ring-fencing. Secondly, of course, as I said in the spending statement, this was a difficult local government settlement-I completely accept that. But even the Labour party was signed up to £44 billion of spending cuts. If Labour Members are telling us that those would not have included local government, that is not really credible. We have had to take difficult decisions and we should be supported for that.

Claire Perry: The Chancellor is heading to an ECOFIN meeting tomorrow and I hope he will continue to press our colleagues in the European Union for some restoration of fiscal sanity in their economic policies. The flag that will be fluttering so merrily over the proceedings will be the blue and yellow one-those are colours that we rather enjoy. Does he agree that unless we see some return to fiscal sanity and some abandonment of the policy of fiscal recklessness perhaps the colour of the flag should be changed from blue and yellow to brown?

George Osborne: Of course we are urging fiscal restraint on the European Union. I should pay tribute to my colleague, the Economic Secretary, who has been out to Brussels twice in the past few days to argue vigorously for restraint in the European Union budget with considerable success. One of the problems we are dealing with is that the previous Government gave up half the rebate and that is one of the reasons why the budget is increasing.

Diana Johnson: The unemployment rate in my constituency was 10.7% in September. After the announcement in the comprehensive spending review of the slashing of jobs, services and skills, what does the Chancellor think will be the unemployment rate in my constituency in 12 months' time?

George Osborne: The whole point is that we have given these forecasts to an independent body, rather than just relying on the forecasts given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this Dispatch Box, so that people can believe in their independence and credibility. The Office for Budget Responsibility will produce its autumn forecast on 29 November. But of course the OBR figure that all Labour Members seem to use is the one for the public sector head count, but they seem to forget that this same body made a forecast of an increase in net employment, which sadly they never use.

Mr Speaker: David Tredinnick, not here.

Marcus Jones: What steps can the Chancellor take to ensure that the Financial Services Authority's mortgage market review proposals do not have a disproportionate effect on home buyers and the housing market, particularly at a time when we are trying to encourage growth through the private sector?

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes an important point and the FSA's mortgage market review is seeking to learn some of the lessons from how the mortgage market was regulated before the financial crisis and some of the problems that that regulation created. What I think is important is that the FSA should consider very carefully the impact on home ownership and particularly on those people who are looking to move shortly.

Michael McCann: May I give those on the Treasury Front Bench the opportunity to answer the question on child benefit that they failed to answer earlier? How do they justify taking child benefit off a single-earning family on £45,000 and allowing a family that earns £80,000 to retain child benefit? An answer this time would be appreciated.

Danny Alexander: As the hon. Gentleman knows-and as the whole House knows-the justification for the measure that we took was to ensure that the cost of the spending review fell equally across the population so that those with the broadest shoulders would bear a greater share of the burden. In those circumstances, it is right that child benefit should be taken away from families with higher rate taxpayers. I would have thought that the Opposition would support that, not oppose it.

Helen Grant: What fiscal action will be taken to increase social mobility and to stimulate it in our country?

Danny Alexander: In the spending review, we took a number of spending decisions that will support social mobility. We chose to invest in early-years education for disadvantaged two-year-olds-a new investment-and to maintain the 15-hours entitlement for three and four-year-olds, something that was introduced under this Government. We chose to invest in a pupil premium that will give additional support to the most disadvantaged children. In tough financial times, that is the strongest investment in social mobility made by any Government in this country for many a long year.

Stephen Timms: The White Paper last week stated that HMRC will be taking on new responsibilities in collecting and processing real-time pay data for the calculation of universal credit. How much has been allocated for the IT to deliver that change?

David Gauke: The response to the consultation on real-time information-the next stage of it-will be published shortly. We will outline the details in that, but additional sums have been identified as part of the spending review process to pay for the real-time information project.

Aidan Burley: More than 20% of my constituents in Cannock Chase are employed by manufacturing centred small businesses. Will the Chancellor assure them that the small business tax review will simplify and reduce taxes for small businesses rather than complicate and increase them?

George Osborne: Yes, I can give that assurance. I also note that the actions that the Government have taken have kept the small companies rate down, avoiding the rise in the rate that we inherited.

Anne Begg: The comprehensive spending review contained a proposal to cut the mobility element of the disability living allowance for those in residential care. Why did the Government make that decision-because it was fair or to reduce the fiscal deficit?

George Osborne: In the spending review we took a number of difficult decisions, including decisions on welfare. We sought to identify the savings that we thought were most justified. As far as I understand it-although I am happy to be corrected-the DLA changes have been supported by the Opposition.

Mark Menzies: Fiscal discipline is, if anything, more essential in opposition than in government. Will the Chancellor tell us whether he has received any support or advice from the Opposition on how to achieve that fiscal discipline?

George Osborne: I am told that they have plans to cut £44 billion from public expenditure, but they have not told me what those plans are.

Hywel Williams: What is the economic case for HMRC's sacking professional tax collectors and hiring novice private sector debt collectors to collect liabilities of tax below £10,000?

David Gauke: The intention is to strengthen HMRC's capability to collect taxes. If that involves making use of private sector expertise to collect additional debt, which is the intention, that is surely a good thing that should be welcomed by all parties.

John Redwood: Given that the Irish Government have said that they neither want nor need a bail-out, will the Chancellor support them at ECOFIN and put off those people in the EU who seem to want to make a crisis out of a problem?

George Osborne: There is an enormous amount of speculation about Ireland at the moment to which I do not propose to add. The Irish Government have said clearly that they have not sought assistance and that they are taking difficult steps to deal with their fiscal situation. They will make further announcements about their Budget situation in the next few weeks. I make the general observation that what is going on at the moment highlights the fact that concerns about sovereign debt issues have not disappeared and we should be grateful that, thanks to the actions of this Government, we have moved Britain out of the financial danger zone.

Russell Brown: What does the Chancellor say to fixed-income pensioner households in my constituency and his who will be faced with the additional VAT burden in just over 50 days?

George Osborne: I would say to them what I would say to everyone in this country: that we inherited the largest fiscal- [ Interruption. ] Well, I do not know how many times Opposition Members have to hear this but it is the truth. They left us the largest Budget deficit in the G20 and the European Union at a time of heightened sovereign debt concern. They can either be part of the debate that the rest of world is taking part in on how to deal with the deficits or they can completely ignore that debate and become irrelevant.

Alec Shelbrooke: Does the Chancellor agree that he should ignore the advice of the Opposition on all matters fiscal relating to the European Union, because it is still their policy to join the euro and because their MEPs voted to double our contribution this year?

George Osborne: As you will remind me, Mr Speaker, I cannot speak for the policy of the Opposition or say whether they have changed their official position which is to support joining the euro, but I make it clear to my hon. Friends and others that we certainly will not join the euro while this Chancellor and this Prime Minister are in place.

John Cryer: It was this Chancellor who agreed a 2.9% increase in contributions to the EU and to cede certain powers to Brussels-that is in the papers he signed-so has he not joined that glorious list of British politicians who go to Brussels, lose their wallets and their trousers and then come back and tell us what a great deal they have got?

George Osborne: I think that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of Tony Blair rather than of this Government. We voted against the increase in the European budget, but we were outvoted because it was a qualified majority vote. We are dealing with the fact that the previous Government gave up half the budget rebate, which is why British contributions are going up, and we are very clear that although we want fiscal rectitude across Europe, we do not propose to hand over substantive new powers to the European Union.

Stephen Williams: There is much support around the country and in the House for the broad principles of the Robin Hood tax campaign. The coalition Government have made a good start with the permanent bank levy; will the Chancellor confirm that he expects the Independent Commission on Banking to consider the taxation of bankers' bonuses and bank profits so that the banks pay their fair share in this country?

George Osborne: The commission that we have set up is looking principally at the structure of the banking sector, which is another very important issue. We have said that we want the banks to make a contribution, which is why we introduced the permanent banking levy; we did not agree with the previous Government that that should not happen. We followed the best practice set out by the International Monetary Fund, which outlined two taxes that could be pursued-one was a bank levy and the other was a financial activities tax, which we also said that we would consider in the Budget. On the broader point of the Robin Hood tax, or the financial transactions tax, which is sometimes discussed at ECOFIN, I think that everyone accepts that it would have to be introduced internationally or else it would be almost impossible to collect any revenue.

Mr Speaker: I think we have got the drift.

Jim McGovern: Can the Chancellor or another Minister tell us what assessment has been made regarding potential job losses due to changes in the benefit system? Much concern has been expressed in my constituency, particularly yesterday in the local press, that up to 700 jobs might be lost in the HMRC office in Dundee as a result of such changes. What assurances can Ministers give me and my constituents that that will not be allowed to happen?

Danny Alexander: The welfare reforms that we are proposing are designed to support people off benefit and into work. That is the whole point of the reforms that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions outlined last week. The reforms that will create a universal credit and some of the changes that we announced in the spending review are all there to help people off benefit and into work, and to help people get jobs, which is what the hon. Gentleman should support.

Penny Mordaunt: Can the Chancellor confirm that, unlike the shadow Chancellor, he is not an instinctive cutter?

George Osborne: I did see that rather remarkable comment from the shadow Chancellor over the weekend. We are doing what we are doing because we have to-because of the size of the Budget deficit.

Tom Blenkinsop: The Federation of Small Businesses North East and the insolvency trade body R3 have wound up one in 10 businesses that were unprepared for the 2.5% increase in VAT next year. Kingston university also recently showed that small businesses in the north-east intend to shed staff. Is not VAT the real jobs tax?

George Osborne: As I say, we are doing that because we need to deal with the Budget deficit. I thought it was the policy of the hon. Gentleman's party that a greater share of the consolidation should be borne by tax rises; I thought that that was now the official policy. It is also clear that the previous Government were planning a VAT rise. Businesses have had plenty of notice of the increase that is coming in in January, and I am sure they will be able to cope in the same way as they coped with the VAT rise at the beginning of this January.

Bob Blackman: All of us are all too aware of the record deficit and debt that we inherited from the Opposition. Will my right hon. Friend agree to publish a regular scorecard showing how that deficit and the debt are reducing, so that taxpayers and the public sector can see the benefit of the Government's policies?

George Osborne: We have created the independent Office for Budget Responsibility so that the fiscal forecasts for the United Kingdom are no longer produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and sometimes influenced by the political judgments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but instead are done independently.

Toby Perkins: On child benefit, can the Chief Secretary explain why he believes that families earning £45,000 have broader shoulders than those earning £80,000?

Danny Alexander: It should be obvious to the hon. Gentleman that higher rate taxpayers have greater means than those at the bottom of the income spectrum. It is a basic principle of fairness that underlies the spending review that we need to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders bear a greater share of the burden. As I said in response to the question earlier, asking higher rate taxpayers not to collect child benefit seems to be one of the decisions in the spending review that the Opposition should find it easiest to support.

Jo Swinson: As my right hon. Friend says, it is right that in reducing the deficit, those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, but do the Government understand the genuine anger that the public feel when it seems as though wealthy individuals and large companies can get away without paying their tax bills? What reassurance can the Minister give my constituents that the richest in society will pay their fair share?

George Osborne: We have taken a number of decisions to make sure that the burden is fairly shared. We have introduced the bank levy, and we are taking child benefit away from higher rate taxpayers, although that is clearly opposed by Labour. We are also seeking to conclude a number of deals with countries that have a reputation for attracting tax avoidance and tax evasion, such as the deal that we are negotiating with Switzerland. That will ensure that there are further revenues coming into the Exchequer from those who can afford it.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Redfern Inquiry

Christopher Huhne: Today I am publishing the report of the Redfern inquiry, which was established in 2007 to investigate the processes and practices surrounding the analysis of human tissue that was carried out in UK nuclear facilities from 1955 to 1992. The inquiry examined the circumstances in which organs or tissue were removed from individuals at NHS or other facilities, and sent to be analysed at nuclear laboratory establishments.
	To lose a family member is tragic. To find out-sometimes decades later-that tissue had been taken without consent is an unimaginable distress. That knowledge is a burden that no one should have to bear. There is no time limit on grief; nor is there on apologies. I would like to take this opportunity to express my heartfelt regret, and to apologise to the families and relatives of those involved. I hope that the publication of today's report goes some way toward providing the closure that they deserve. The events described in the inquiry should never have happened in the first place. We have learned the lessons of the past. The law on human tissue has been reviewed, and a rigorous regulatory system is now in place, in which both the public and professionals have confidence.
	I would like to thank the chairman of the inquiry, Mr Michael Redfern QC, for conducting the investigation. The inquiry has also benefited from the support of the nuclear industry and other key stakeholders, who have co-operated fully. The inquiry was established to investigate the circumstances in which organs were removed from individuals, and were sent to and analysed at Sellafield. However, as evidence came to light of similar work carried out at other sites and of studies involving non-nuclear workers, Michael Redfern QC was asked to make those additional cases part of his inquiry.
	The inquiry was initially sponsored by the Department of Trade and Industry, which at that time had responsibility for energy policy. The Department of Health became a co-sponsor when the terms of reference were expanded to allow the inquiry to access relevant NHS information, and to investigate the part played by hospitals in which the post-mortem examinations had been conducted. Although not a sponsor of the inquiry, the Ministry of Justice also has an interest in the inquiry's findings and recommendations in respect of the coroner's role.
	The report highlights unacceptable working practices within the nuclear industry, NHS pathology services and the coronial service, and concludes that families' views were not always obtained as required under the Human Tissue Act 1961. It acknowledges that these events occurred a number of decades ago, and puts them within the context of the times and current practice. Many of the issues raised by the inquiry have since been addressed by changes to the law, including the introduction of the Human Tissue Act 2004.
	The inquiry found that organs from 64 former Sellafield workers were removed by pathologists and taken for analysis at Sellafield between 1960 and 1991. In addition, organs taken from 12 workers at other nuclear sites were analysed at, or at the request of, Sellafield, giving a total cohort of 76. The inquiry also found evidence of other individuals whose organs were analysed at Sellafield. The report finds that there was a lack of ethical consideration of the implications of the research work that the industry was doing; that limited supervision was undertaken; and that relationships between pathologists, coroners and the Sellafield medical officers became too close.
	The inquiry has found that organs from a small number of former Ministry of Defence employees were removed for analysis. It has been difficult to establish the legality of a minority of these removals. Also, during the 1950s and 1960s the Medical Research Council oversaw research measuring levels of strontium 90 in human bone obtained at post-mortem. It was a national survey, involving more than 6,000 people, mostly children, and was not linked to former nuclear workers.
	The inquiry also considered work undertaken by the National Radiological Protection Board. Across its entire remit, the inquiry found that families' views about organ retention were not always sought, and that very few families knew that organs were taken for analysis. Research using human tissue at that time was carried out under different legislation, and within a culture that took a very different approach to these matters than we do today. That is not to diminish the distress and suffering caused to families by the events of the past. However, we have learned from the mistakes of the past, and we now have in place the legislative and regulatory framework that makes consent the fundamental principle underpinning the lawful retention and use of body parts, organs and tissue from the living or the deceased for such purposes.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and I welcome the inquiry's recognition of the changes in the law and the associated regulatory framework relating to the taking, use and storage of human tissue, which have been put in place since the events leading up to the inquiry. Since the Human Tissue Act 2004 came into force, we have seen the development of robust regulation that focuses on compliance through the provision of expert advice and guidance-and where regulatory action is taken if standards are not met.
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has the principal interest in the inquiry's findings relating to the role of coroners. His Department is responsible for coronial law and policy, but as coroners are independent judicial office holders, it does not monitor how they carry out their functions in individual cases unless specific complaints are made. Communication between families, coroners and pathologists was, and still is, vital.
	Changes to the 1984 coroners rules, which were introduced alongside the human tissue legislation, are aimed at ensuring that families' wishes about what happens to organs and tissue retained after a post-mortem examination can be properly established and acted upon. My right hon. and learned Friend also intends to take forward several provisions in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 which address other problems that Mr Redfern identifies and aim to prevent any recurrence of the events that led to the establishment of his inquiry.
	Although the Government are not proceeding with the role of a chief coroner, we intend to transfer many of the intended leadership functions of the post to the Lord Chancellor, or possibly to the senior judiciary. There will be higher standards when commissioning post-mortem examinations, and in the way that coroners communicate with bereaved families. There will be more effective operational delivery, with an end to rigid, geographic boundary restrictions. Training for coroners and their staff will be maintained and improved, and coroners' work will be more transparent so that unacceptable practices can be avoided or challenged and deficiencies can be tackled. We are also considering introducing the new, more accountable system for appointing coroners and their deputies that the 2009 Act enabled.
	The inquiry has sought and received assurances from all the key nuclear industry stakeholders that the practice of retaining organs or tissue at autopsy has ceased. I hope that the families of those involved can take some comfort from the knowledge that the practices that the inquiry examined simply would not be permissible today. I commend this statement to the House.

Meg Hillier: I thank the Secretary of State and his office for early sight of his statement on this very important matter.
	Our first sympathies must be for the families. They have lived through an ordeal and had to relive or, in some cases, discover what happened to their loved ones after death. It cannot have been easy, and their forbearance has been great. I very much welcome the Secretary of State's heartfelt apology. I, like other Members, have had only a short time to look at the report, but it is clear that it is thorough, clearly written and a credit to the hard work of Michael Redfern QC and his team. My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has ably represented many of the families over a long period, and today the families must come first.
	The events in question took place some time ago, and it has been challenging to piece together the history. The issues are complex, and Michael Redfern has produced a report that not only explains what happens, but provides reassurance that such practices are no longer used. The events, let us remember, took place in a different era when there was much debate about the safety of the nuclear industry, and the GMB at the time campaigned hard for a compensation scheme for nuclear workers who had been exposed to excess radiation. Today, a compensation scheme is in place.
	The report is clear that the law at the time was in place to prevent the removal of human tissue without proper consent from those who had died. Unfortunately, that did not prevent these events from happening. It is an important and salutary reminder to all of us in this House, and elsewhere, that we need to remain vigilant in our scrutiny of professional practice and of the work of scientists. Science is vital to the UK, and we have a worldwide reputation to protect. It is in all our interests to get it right.
	I have some questions for the Secretary of State. Is he able to reassure the public that the events outlined in the Redfern inquiry report are historical and are not taking place today? We have the 2004 Act; we now need to be vigilant about it.
	The inquiry looked into the issue of removal of organs from 76 people. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that that was the extent of the case? I am sure that he will agree that any families who are concerned should have an easy route to information about their loved ones; perhaps he could explain how they can find out more.
	The Secretary of State rightly talks about the new rigorous regulatory system, but it is the Government's intention to abolish the Human Tissue Authority and transfer its functions to other bodies. What guarantee can he give that such important functions will not be lost as a result of the Government's proposed changes?
	The Secretary of State is clear that such acts would not be permissible today, as they were not then. It is therefore particularly important that procedures are in place to uncover any practices of this nature in future. Can he further explain what contact the Government have had or are planning to have with the professions concerned, particularly pathologists and coroners, to ensure that robust procedures are in place so that this could not happen again?
	This report does not stop the heartache for the families, but it lays out the facts, and I hope that that gives them some comfort.

Christopher Huhne: I thank the hon. Lady. I think that this is an issue on which we can all unite, in all parts of the House, in our frank shock at the events that took place, albeit it many decades ago in many cases. I am able to give the reassurance that the hon. Lady seeks, and the reassurance to the public, that these events are historical and, as far as we can tell, are not taking place today; they would clearly be illegal. The Redfern inquiry sought assurances from all the key players-and indeed received those assurances-that there was nothing taking place today that would be similar.
	In the course of the inquiry, as the report makes clear, it became obvious that the removal of organs from a limited number of people in fact related to only a part of the total. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), as the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, knew about that when the inquiry was commissioned. The inquiry points out that once we take account of other cases, the total is nearly 6,000 across the country. That is a very much greater figure than we thought at the time.
	The hon. Lady is right to say that the Human Tissue Authority is to be abolished by the Government and its functions transferred to other bodies. I have spoken with my colleagues from the Department of Health on this point. Those functions will be transferred to other organisations and dealt with by the Department of Health. There will be no question of any relenting on the key functions that were set out for the Human Tissue Authority.
	The professions have been engaged in conversations with both the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice. I am confident that the lessons of the report will be learned and that robust procedures will be put in place to ensure that such questionable practices do not recur.
	The hon. Lady asked about current safety levels in the nuclear industry. I can assure her that we have a rigorous safety and inspection regime which is kept under constant review in order to make sure that safety levels are absolutely at the highest.

Alistair Darling: I add my thanks to Michael Redfern for his very substantial report, which is far weightier and far more extensive than we anticipated when I commissioned his work three and a half years ago.
	It is difficult to judge what happened over a period of 50 years-of course, standards, ethics and the law have changed very substantially-but does the Secretary of State accept two things? First, many people would acknowledge that there will be occasions when more investigation and research is necessary, but the key thing is that they should be involved in those decisions, they should know about the work, and they should be in a position to give or withhold their consent.
	Secondly, although things have changed dramatically in the nuclear industry over the past few years, it does have a history of being less open than it should be. By being more open, it will build more confidence in what it does-an objective in which I believe, and in which I think the Secretary of State now believes as well.

Christopher Huhne: I totally agree with both the right hon. Gentleman's points. The key principle introduced in the Human Tissue Act 2004 was consent ahead of time. The legal situation before that allowed researchers to access human tissue without consent if they had made reasonable efforts to obtain it. That was a fundamental change, and I entirely agree that it was important for us as a society to move with the times and reflect the key family sensitivities involved. I also agree entirely with his point about the nuclear industry. Openness is usually the best disinfectant, and transparency is thoroughly desirable.

Jamie Reed: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement, to the shadow Secretary of State for her warm wards and to the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), for instigating the report in the first instance. I declare two interests, as both a former Sellafield worker and the grandson of Thompson Reed, one of the trade union officials mentioned in the report.
	I hope that there will now be a dialogue between the affected families and the Government on the subject of restitution. The nuclear industry and Sellafield are extremely popularly supported in my part of the world, not least by me. One telling point in the report is the constant churn and change that the West Cumberland hospital and NHS management structures have experienced, which may have led to less than ideal practices. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with me and those in my community, with a view to seeing how we can fund the hospital outside the routine, ordinary funding systems that exist for other hospitals, given the unique nature of the work undertaken at Sellafield?

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he knows, I am very committed to continued employment in the nuclear industry and the importance of his area to it, and I visited Sellafield shortly after I became Secretary of State. We very much want to maintain that dialogue. I am keen to take up any issues of concern to his constituents and employees in the industry about their health care or anything else. He can rely on my support on that.
	The funding streams are obviously an issue for the Department of Health, but I do not think the hon. Gentleman would want us to go down the route of allying particular health funding streams to their causes-that, for instance, road accident matters should be funded by the Department for Transport or that nuclear health streams should be funded by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. However, he can be assured of my support in ensuring that the care available is outstanding.

Caroline Lucas: One of the most disturbing elements is the culture of secrecy that allowed body parts not only to be taken without permission but later to be disposed of as waste in the low-level waste depository at Drigg. Many living relatives will be deeply distressed to think of their loved ones being treated in such a callous way. Does the Secretary of State agree that that culture of secrecy still surrounds the nuclear industry and can be a barrier to proper scrutiny and accountability? What measures will he take to challenge it?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Lady recognises-I hope-that there have been improvements in recent years in the openness of the industry. I believe it understands the importance of public confidence, because it is a very different industry from the one that existed during the decades in which these practices were undertaken. One way of securing and retaining public confidence is to be as open and transparent about practices as possible, and as the Secretary of State responsible for the industry, I am extremely keen that that should be the case. I want the industry's practices-particularly its safety practices, but respect for those who work in the industry too-to be maintained at the highest possible level. If the hon. Lady has particular concerns, I would be very happy to deal with them either in correspondence or in the normal way through parliamentary answers.

Tony Cunningham: Anyone who reads this report will be absolutely horrified, as I am. I dread to think what the families will be feeling at this time; our thoughts and prayers are very much with them as they go through this very difficult period. Is the Secretary of State prepared to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) and me as soon as possible to see what help and support we can give both to the families and the wider community of west Cumbria?

Christopher Huhne: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his neighbour on this and any other issue. The industry is important to their part of the world, and I hope that the relationships can improve and that we can provide some reassurance to the families that such events will never happen again. We extend our condolences to those in distress.

Paul Flynn: Will the Secretary of State congratulate Dr David Lowry on publishing evidence from the 1962 report of the Medical Research Council's National Radiological Protection Board to show that there was an experiment in which people, including pregnant women, young people under 18 and those without fatal diseases, were exposed to doses of radiation of the most long-lived type, including strontium, plutonium and caesium? Is this not a sad story of the nuclear industry being far more interested in public relations than in public health?

Christopher Huhne: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify Dr Lowry as one of the important characters in opening up this whole saga. I am happy to join him in his congratulations on that score. The key issue that we have to keep repeating to anyone who doubts it in the nuclear industry is that openness is absolutely crucial. We have an enormous continuing nuclear clean-up legacy in Sellafield and elsewhere that will require great effort for many years to come. That arises, in part, from the fact that the industry-here I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier)-was too secretive for far too long.

Thomas Docherty: I should declare an interest having been brought up in west Cumbria and having worked for many years in the nuclear industry. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friends the Members for Copeland (Mr Reed) and for Workington (Tony Cunningham) on championing their communities on this issue for many years. The Secretary of State said that these are historical events. None the less, the practices continued until less than two decades ago, and personnel may be still in the NHS or the nuclear industry who were part of that decision-making process. Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that no one is working today in the NHS or in the industry who was responsible for those terrible decisions?

Christopher Huhne: Michael Redfern QC identifies and names a number of people in his extensive report. The criticisms that are made of those individuals are quite a rebuke to anyone who is in a professional job and who values their standing. The key figures have now retired, and would certainly not be responsible for a continuation of such practices. However, that would be true even if they had not retired, because the law has now changed. The report, none the less, is thorough, extensive and identifies those individuals who were involved but who have now retired.

Guantanamo Civil Litigation Settlement

Kenneth Clarke: With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. On 6 July, the Prime Minister told the House that the legacy issues the Government had inherited around the treatment of detainees held by other countries needed to be addressed. Our reputation as a country that believes in human rights, justice, fairness and the rule of law otherwise risked being tarnished. There was also the risk of public confidence being eroded, with people doubting the ability of our security and intelligence agencies to protect us and questioning the rules under which they operate.
	The Government are absolutely clear that national security and the protection of the rule of law go hand in hand. The Prime Minister has repeatedly made it clear that this coalition Government are unswerving in their opposition to torture or the ill-treatment of prisoners or detainees. We do not condone it, nor do we ask others to do it on our behalf.
	We recognise that our longer-term security interests require that we defend our values and the rule of law, and that any allegations that threaten those must be treated seriously. In tackling the challenges posed by those serious allegations, the Government's overriding objective is to ensure that the security and intelligence agencies can focus on their vital task of protecting the security and interests of the UK, and that the serious allegations that threaten their reputation and that of our country are examined properly. The security of this nation is the first concern of any Government. The security and intelligence agencies play an invaluable part in ensuring our security, and the Government are determined that they are free to do the vital job that we need them to do.
	In his statement, the Prime Minister said that a single, authoritative inquiry was required to investigate the serious allegations of the Government's complicity in the mistreatment of detainees held by other countries. The right honourable Sir Peter Gibson was appointed to head that independent inquiry. However, the Prime Minister also made it clear that the inquiry could not begin while related police investigations were ongoing and while so many of the Guantanamo civil law suits brought against the Government remained unresolved. To help to pave the way for the inquiry to begin, the Government committed to entering into a process of mediation with those held by the United States in detention in Guantanamo Bay who had brought civil actions against the Government.
	I can today inform the House that the Government have now agreed a mediated settlement of the civil damages claims brought by detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. The details of that settlement have been made subject to a legally binding confidentiality agreement. They have been reported in confidence to the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House, to the National Audit Office, and, I think, to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

Margaret Hodge: indicated dissent.

Kenneth Clarke: Ah. No.
	No admissions of culpability have been made in settling those cases and nor have any of the claimants withdrawn their allegations. This is a mediated settlement. Confidentiality is a very common feature of mediation processes, as in this case. Confidentiality was agreed by both parties, subject to the necessary parliamentary accountability and legal requirements. I hope that the House will understand that I am unable to comment further on the details of the settlement without breaching that confidentiality with the claimants.
	The alternative to any payments made was protracted and extremely expensive litigation in an uncertain legal environment in which the Government could not be certain that we would be able to defend Departments and the security and intelligence agencies without compromising national security. The cost was estimated at approximately £30 million to £50 million over three to five years of litigation. In our view, there could have been no Gibson inquiry until that ligation was resolved.
	The Government will make a further statement to the House when the relevant police processes have been completed and the inquiry is in a position to begin its work. The mediated settlement actually represents a significant step forward in delivering the Government's plan for a resolution of those issues in the interests of both justice and national security. The settlement has the support of the heads of the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Whitehall Departments involved. The Security Service and the SIS are issuing a public statement to that effect today.
	In his statement, the Prime Minister also announced plans for a Green Paper on the use of intelligence in judicial proceedings, which we hope to publish in the summer of 2011. It will examine mechanisms for the protection and disclosure of sensitive information in the full range of civil proceedings, inquests and inquiries. We will also consider complementary options to modernise and reform existing standing intelligence oversight mechanisms. The Government are engaging with relevant parliamentary bodies, key stakeholders and our international partners in developing these proposals further. Today's announcement is a very important step forward, and we are closer now to getting the important Gibson inquiry into all these allegations finally under way.

Sadiq Khan: I thank the Justice Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for our meeting earlier today. I welcome his decision this morning to make this an oral statement to the House, rather than the written statement originally planned. I would also like to put it on the record at the outset that up until November 2004, I was a senior partner at a law firm that acted for a number of the Guantanamo Bay detainees.
	Does the Secretary of State agree that statements as significant as this should be made first to the House before they appear in the media? Will he therefore join me in raising concern that this extremely important announcement was leaked to ITN's "News at Ten" programme last night?
	On the substance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement, the House is united in its complete rejection of torture and mistreatment. That goes for the practice of and collusion or complicity in torture. It is illegal, it is internationally banned, and no Government should have anything to do with it. The Labour party has been, and will remain, completely opposed to Guantanamo Bay. We took action in government to remove all the British citizens and all but one resident from Guantanamo Bay, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (David Miliband) ensured that Britain's Government were the first to get all their citizens out of there. What steps are this Government taking to secure the release of the one remaining resident still in Guantanamo Bay, Shaker Aamer? I note that the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), who represents his family, is in her place.
	Britain's security services, under all Governments, are required to live up to the highest standards, while protecting our national security. They do an incredible job. Their work is rarely ever recognised, for obvious reasons of secrecy, but they save lives, and we should always remind ourselves of that. We should also place firmly on the record the human rights policy of our security services, and be proud of their stance. As John Sawers, the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, said last month:
	"If we know or believe action by us will lead to torture taking place, we're required by UK and international law to avoid that action. It makes us strive all the harder to find different ways, consistent with human rights, to get the outcome we want."
	To sustain the excellent work of the intelligence agencies, and to ensure that these standards are met in practice, it is vital that whenever allegations are made they are fully investigated.
	You will know, Mr Speaker, that the previous Government began the process of publishing the consolidated guidance given to our intelligence officers, which was a process finished by the current Government earlier this year. It was and remains our view that all measures possible should be taken to satisfy ourselves, the public and our allies that if any wrongdoing is alleged it is fully investigated, that any evidence is gathered and passed on, and that it is dealt with to conclusion. That is why the previous Attorney-General referred two cases where concerns had been raised to the police for investigation, and that is why we look forward to the judge-led inquiry into allegations of complicity in torture now that the civil cases are settled.
	Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the police will be able to conclude their investigations before the judge-led inquiry begins? Obviously, the House has not been privy to the detail of the settlements and the negotiations, but he will know that there are legitimate questions about the settlements that the Government have come to that mean that these 16 cases will no longer be resolved individually in the courts. We understand that the Government have had to consider this in the light of the ruling by the Court of Appeal in May. Can he confirm to the House that the settlements reached will not pre-judge the inquiry or pass judgement on the actions of our security services in advance of a full investigation?
	Will the confidentiality agreement prevent the Secretary of State from telling the House and the public the sums of money involved in these settlements? If so, will he reconsider and agree with us that there is a public interest in knowing the total sum involved in this settlement? Will he commit to scrutiny of the settlements by both the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Public Accounts Committee? He said that the claimants would be able to give evidence to the Gibson inquiry. Can he tell the House what investigations within the scope of the inquiry will take place into the allegations in those specific cases? Will the inquiry pass judgment on each individual case? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the scope of that inquiry has changed since the Prime Minister's statement to the House in July?
	Finally, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman also tell the House whether any other cases remain unsettled, and if so what decision has been taken on their effect on the inquiry? It is important that the inquiry can be thorough and that its access to documents held by the Government should be as full as that enjoyed by the courts. Can he therefore confirm that the Gibson inquiry will have access to all the same information that has been or would be available to the courts? Everyone will appreciate the need to ensure that Britain's security is not compromised, and that must be reflected in the way that the inquiry operates. However, as the allegations are comprehensively addressed, it is important that the public should have confidence in the process and its outcome. We say again: there is no place for the torture or mistreatment of detainees.

Kenneth Clarke: I, too, regret the leak. I am having a bad week for leaks. I made a statement yesterday that had been leaked by somebody at the weekend, and last night I was at dinner when I was told that ITV had details of this statement. It is early days in government to have them so frequently-but 'twas ever thus. I will do my best to ensure that there are no leaks of this kind in future.
	We continue to press the Americans for Shaker Aamer's release. We are trying to ensure his release, and we are in constant contact with them.
	So far as the other questions are concerned, the determination of this Government, as soon as we took office, has been to try to draw a line under these cases and move on, in the light of the policy that the right hon. Gentleman supported, and on which all parts of the House agreed. This country is against torture. This country has a good, high-quality security and intelligence service. We wish to make it quite clear that it is not complicit-and must not be complicit-in the torture or ill-treatment of detainees, so the sooner we resolve these doubts and enable it to get on with its proper job of intelligence, the better. We were bogged down in litigation and complaints which were slowly going not exactly nowhere but could have taken years to resolve, because of all the difficulties with the admissibility of the evidence and the hearing of evidence in public.
	For that reason, we have sought to draw a line under things. We published the guidance on treatment of detainees, as the right hon. Gentleman said, which is the first step that we took. We have now resolved these issues in a way that enables us to move on. We still have to wait for the police inquiry, to which he also referred. That is entirely a matter for the police, and no one-no Minister or anybody else-can intervene and start instructing the police on how to conduct such inquiries. We cannot get the Gibson inquiry under way until the police inquiries have been resolved. I do not know how long they will take-I hope that they will not take too long-but that is a matter for the police. If those inquiries lead to prosecutions, we will have to wait for the resolution of those prosecutions. If they lead to no prosecutions, we really will be clear to get on to the inquiry that lies beyond.
	The settlement, which involves no concession of liability or withdrawal of allegations, does not prejudge the Gibson inquiry in any way. It will be entirely for Sir Peter and his colleagues to decide on the inquiry once its terms of reference have finally been settled. We see the inquiry as looking at the problem in general-that is, looking at the history and deciding whether there were problems and whether there are any lessons to learn, as well as making inquiries about how we might ensure that the standards that the whole House would want to uphold are put beyond doubt for the future. We have not altered the scope of the inquiry since the Prime Minister made his statement, and we expect it to have access to a wide range of information-indeed, all the information that it could reasonably expect. The problem with the courts is either that they cannot have access to a lot of the information because of all the security problems, or that it cannot share it with the complainants and the public. So far as I am aware, the settlements cover all the British residents and citizens from Guantanamo Bay who are making complaints. We are not aware of any other cases that could be raised on all fours with those.
	The settlement has saved us money and, most importantly, time. It has stopped the intelligence service spending man-hours on sifting through evidence and coping with litigation, but it must remain confidential. It is legally confidential and could be reopened if either side broke that confidentiality, so I am afraid that I am unable to tell the right hon. Gentleman the precise sums involved, but the gain that has been achieved by mediating the claims is considerable and in the national interest.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. There is much interest in this subject, and immediately afterwards we have a ten-minute rule motion followed by the first day in Committee of a very important constitutional Bill, so there is a premium on brevity from Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members alike.

Richard Ottaway: Having been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee for the past five years, I have reached the uncomfortable conclusion that if there is not to be a total breakdown in the intelligence-sharing relationship with the United States, my right hon. and learned Friend has reached the right conclusion. However, does he agree that he must now find a way of conducting such litigation without compromising national security? Has he considered expanding the scope of the Green Paper from civil cases to criminal cases?

Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sensible proposition. The same issues arise, and I will certainly bear his suggestion in mind. The problem crops up over and over again. We currently have an inquest into the highly important matter of the explosions on 7 July which has decided to extend itself into an inquiry into the activities of the intelligence services in informing themselves about possible risks to security throughout the country. Wholly foreseeably, it has run crash into the problem of exactly what evidence is supposed to be adduced about that in public. I have no idea-it is for Lady Justice Hallett to resolve-how we move on in that particular case. The Green Paper will be difficult. It will be difficult to reach clear conclusions, but we wish to do so as quickly as possible and the purpose of the Green Paper is to address that problem so that we can be sure that justice is done without compromising national security. At the moment, there is a tendency for claimants, the security service and everyone else to get bogged down in interminable litigation and judicial review. That has to be resolved.

Jack Straw: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement and the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). Picking up on the remarks of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway), may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it will be possible for Sir Peter Gibson, who has great judicial experience, to feed into the important work on the Green Paper on the use of intelligence in judicial proceedings?

Kenneth Clarke: Sir Peter Gibson has indeed been the Intelligence Services Commissioner, and still is, although he will probably have to give that up when he takes on this inquiry. If he wishes to give his views on this difficult question, I am sure that they will be welcome, because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, he is a considerable expert on the subject.

Tom Brake: Is it a reasonable assumption that the UK Government would not agree to a mediated settlement if there were no evidence whatever of UK involvement in any illegal act?

Kenneth Clarke: The settlement is not to be taken as an admission of liability, as it were. It was not in the interests of either party to get stuck into civil litigation with a wholly unforeseeable outcome. As I have said, it could have taken years and cost tens of millions of pounds. Its resolution was holding up the wish of the Prime Minister and the Government to get on with sorting out the allegations and having a proper inquiry into them. It has cost us quite a bit of money to mediate them, because the complainants were pressing their claims. The situation is obviously difficult and unusual, but it was right, in the public interest, to pay the money. The idea that we should carry on arguing for the next five or six years-it could have taken that long-and find ourselves in a pale reflection of the Saville inquiry running on and on would not have done anyone any good at all, so we paid the money so that we can move on. I think we have saved public money by not continuing to contest the claims.

David Miliband: I think there will be natural concern on both sides of the House about Government payments of compensation when culpability has not been admitted. It is, however, important to welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement today. I also welcome his repetition-word for word, if my memory serves me right-of the previous Government's position on torture and other cruel and inhuman treatment. May I bring him back to the subject of the police inquiries and the Gibson inquiry? Like him, I hope for a speedy conclusion to the police inquiries so that the Gibson inquiry can get on with its work and bring some facts to a debate that often sadly lacks them. Would it be possible for Sir Peter Gibson and his team to start work now, even if their public and other work cannot get going yet? It would be a pity if the police inquiries were to drag on for many more months, delaying bringing clarity to this area.

Kenneth Clarke: I share the right hon. Gentleman's statement of this country's values as far as torture and ill-treatment are concerned. I also share his impatience to see the Gibson inquiry get under way. The Government cannot, however, have the inquiry proceeding in parallel with either civil or criminal proceedings on part of the same subject. For that reason, we must make it clear straight away that both will have to be resolved before we can proceed. If Sir Peter were to start, and if there were a prosecution arising from the police inquiries, a criminal trial might be running in parallel to his inquiry. That would not be possible. We shall wait to see what the police decide, and the moment those matters are resolved, Sir Peter will be able to begin his work.

Tony Baldry: Without prejudicing any of the facts of this case, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that any act of torture, or conspiracy to commit acts of torture, by any UK citizen anywhere in the world will be a criminal offence, and that, as a matter of public policy, any evidence obtained by torture will always be inadmissible in UK courts?

Kenneth Clarke: Yes, I can give a straightforward, positive answer to both those questions. Yes, that is undoubtedly the case, and my hon. Friend has accurately stated the position.

Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the Justice Secretary for giving me advance notice of his statement. Given the need to preserve confidentiality in relation to the settlement, how long does he think that that confidentiality will be preserved, bearing in mind the two serious leaks from his Department this week?

Kenneth Clarke: Exactly the same thoughts have crossed my mind, but I am bound by the confidentiality agreement and I must hope that everyone will abide by their legal obligations. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's uncertainty.

Kris Hopkins: Might it be appropriate for us to seek to recover the costs of the compensation payments from those individuals who are responsible, in particular the former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, who has made tens of millions of pounds since leaving this House?

Kenneth Clarke: The costs have been incurred in civil litigation between the detainees and the Government, and we have settled the matter. I do not think that that would be proper-I do not agree with my hon. Friend's suggestion, and I do not think that there is really the slightest claim against the previous Prime Minister.

George Howarth: Does the Secretary of State accept that many people will find this settlement a bitter pill to swallow? Will he confirm that, if our intelligence relationship with the United States were to break down, which was a real possibility, it would imperil the lives of many, many citizens of this country?

Kenneth Clarke: I agree that the Government's relationship with the United States and the close relationship between our intelligence services and those of the United States make a vital contribution to our protection of the security of this country and the lives of individuals here. That must not be jeopardised.

Julian Lewis: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be wrong to infer from the fact that there is a confidentiality agreement about the substantial sums paid to these individuals that that confidentiality agreement was imposed at the behest of one side rather than the other?

Kenneth Clarke: The other side wanted confidentiality as well, I am assured. It is not at all unusual, when mediating an action of this kind, for both sides to agree that they wish to have confidentiality. My hon. Friend is quite right: there is no point in trying to read into this that either side has resiled. Anyone who has been involved in any kind of civil litigation on a less serious matter will know that, often, a party that has been busily protesting its side of the argument can be quite well advised to stop running up costs, to stop wasting management time, to make a reasonable offer and to get out of it. In this case, the considerations were much more important for the public interest. How much longer did we want man-hours in the intelligence services to be absorbed, and how many tens of millions were we prepared to spend on interminable litigation?

David Winnick: Leaving aside the cheap political point made by the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins) a moment ago, let me tell the Justice Secretary that I find it difficult to understand-as will many people-how compensation could be paid unless there was substantial substance to the allegations made by those who claim that they were transferred illegally and tortured abroad. Surely the clear lesson to be learned is that a state such as ours, based on the rule of law, must ensure that all its officials observe the rule of law, and must not be complicit in any way with agents abroad who carry out torture.

Kenneth Clarke: It is not unusual in many walks of life for a settlement to be reached with neither party making any concessions on their arguments, but both parties agreeing that the settlement constitutes a sensible way of reaching a compromise in the dispute without going further.
	I entirely agree with the statement of principle in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The Government are opposed to torture. Torture is a serious criminal offence. We are opposed to the ill-treatment of detainees and prisoners in any circumstances. We will not condone it, and we will not be complicit in it. Those are the essential values that we must defend, even when we face such dangers as we do now from terrorism in the world.

Jane Ellison: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. Further to his comments about Shaker Aamer, does he agree that if we are to achieve closure gradually over the next few years, it is important that Shaker Aamer is released to this country so that he can give evidence to the torture inquiry in person?

Kenneth Clarke: Yes, I do agree. I know that there are people who feel very strongly about the release of Shaker Aamer. We continue to be in contact with the United States, and we continue to hope that he will be released and returned to this country. I know that my hon. Friend has been arguing and campaigning for that for some time. I agree with her, and we are doing our best.

Mike Gapes: Is the Secretary of State comfortable with the fact that millions of pounds are being paid out during the week in which he is announcing big cuts in the legal aid budget? Should we not be ensuring that if those who receive the money themselves breach the confidentiality agreement, or their lawyers do, the money is then taken back from them?

Kenneth Clarke: That might involve reopening the settlement, which I would not be willing to do. We must be careful about the confidentiality because, certainly in principle, the settlement could be reopened. I entirely understand that there are a large number of aspects of this with which everyone is uncomfortable, and which some people will strongly dislike. However, we must keep our eye on the ball, and decide what is truly in the national interest. What is truly in the national interest is allowing the intelligence services to get on with their job, allowing us to put the reputation of this country beyond doubt, and learning lessons that may have to be learned-we do not know yet-from anything that Sir Peter Gibson puts forward.
	As for the legal aid proposals, we said that legal aid would still be available, on a means-tested basis, to anyone who wished to challenge the state by way of judicial review. Other claims would have to involve exceptional public interest.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome the statement. I am sorry that we did not do more to speak out against Guantanamo Bay and everything that it stands for. The creation of the term "enemy combatants" allowed the nation, indeed the world, to ignore the Geneva conventions.
	My I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to turn to the issue of compensation for British victims of terrorism overseas? As he will know, those who were caught up in the 7/7 bombings were adequately supported and compensated, but as soon as such an event takes place abroad we see that there is no support whatsoever, whether it be in Bali, Mumbai or Sharm el Sheikh. That is simply wrong, and it needs to change.

Kenneth Clarke: I know of my hon. Friend's continuing interest in this subject. As part of our policy considerations in the light of the public spending review, we are having to examine the criminal injuries compensation system and the proposed terrorist injury compensation system. We are having to decide how we should judge the Government's responsibilities for compensating those who have been injured by crime, either at home-we have always compensated those people-or abroad: I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning for that.

Keith Vaz: A year ago, I wrote on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee to the previous Attorney-General, asking about the police inquiries, and I see that the Secretary of State is surrounded by Law Officers today. While not seeking to influence or instruct the police, which would be totally improper, surely it is in everyone's interests that we know if there is a timetable. What is holding up this inquiry, which has gone on for several years?

Kenneth Clarke: If the police follow these exchanges, I am sure they will note the right hon. Gentleman's impatience that we move on and get some resolution to inquiries, which I think have been going on for about 15 to 18 months. He knows, because he is as good a lawyer as anybody else involved in these discussions, that it would be quite improper for anyone to approach the police and put pressure on them to put in place a timetable or to press them one way or the other.

Henry Smith: I welcome the Gibson inquiry, and I agree that what has been announced is necessary for the sake of our national security, but will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge the concern expressed by many people that a settlement has been paid using British taxpayers' money for foreign nationals-non-British citizens-detained in a foreign country by a foreign Government?

Kenneth Clarke: The cases involve British nationals or British residents. Although there is one case where that is a slightly doubtful statement, it had already got under way before we came into office, and at some stage the jurisdiction had been accepted. Twelve cases are already before the court, and four would have come before the court if we had not proceeded as we have. We have not started compensating people at large for what happened in Guantanamo Bay. We have only dealt with British residents and British citizens.

Dennis Skinner: Have I got this right? Is the Secretary of State paying out large sums of money-he will not tell us how much-to people who are giving no guarantees about not breaking confidentiality? Can it be true that he cannot say to the House that this matter has ended? Is he not buying time? This sounds like money for old rope. The other week, the Conservatives were giving prisoners votes; now they are giving them lottery millions. I think I have already discovered the soft underbelly of this Government.

Kenneth Clarke: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, no, he is not right: the confidentiality is binding on both sides. The people who brought the claims have bound themselves by confidentiality and so have the Government. That is a perfectly usual term of a mediated settlement of what was going to be a hugely expensive problem for the British taxpayer if it had not been resolved.

Dominic Raab: I welcome the statement. As I understand it, the mediation is designed to address the potential cost of litigation arising from the Guantanamo cases and is estimated to be between £30 million and £50 million. The inquiry is also wider than that, and will deal with non-Guantanamo cases where individuals have been detained in other countries. What is the estimated cost of the potential litigation in those cases?

Kenneth Clarke: I agree that the Gibson inquiry does have wide terms of reference, although these matters finally have to be settled. It is looking at the whole question of the ill treatment of detainees generally, although, of course, usually in cases where there is some British involvement, such as where our allies have been involved or where we have been engaged in theatre. My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) takes a great interest in these allegations and as he cannot be present today he has been on the telephone to me, because he is very anxious that rendition should be included.
	I cannot give an estimate of the cost, but we are anxious that there should be a reasonable time scale, and so is Sir Peter. We do not want this to go on for ever. The inquiry will take a general look at the position, and it will take such evidence as it feels fit and go as wide as is necessary to guide future British policy. Beyond that I cannot go, however, because in the end this will be a matter for Sir Peter and his two colleagues on the panel.

Kevin Brennan: We know that the settlement was under £30 million because that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said was the minimum cost of the alternative. I confess that I am not a lawyer-most British people are not lawyers-but I cannot understand why the Government, in making this settlement, took the view that they wanted to keep the sum of money involved a secret from the British people. Why was that the Government's position in this case?

Kenneth Clarke: This was negotiated and the other side wanted confidentiality, and it was settled on the basis of confidentiality, subject to parliamentary accountability. I understand the hon. Gentleman, and, with great respect, I anticipated his questions, as they are going to occur to quite a lot of people. We could settle this on the basis of confidentiality and we have done so. We have notified the National Audit Office, I think that we offered a briefing to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and we have briefed the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, but it would be folly to break the legal confidentiality, which was part of the settlement, if the result is to jeopardise the settlement and put us back where we started.

Ian Austin: I am sorry to strike a discordant note, but ordinary decent people out there are going to think that the world has gone mad. People making wild, unsubstantiated and baseless allegations of torture are getting more money than victims of terrorism here in London. If, as the Secretary of State says, it is the law that has forced him to do this, what people out there will want to hear from him are assurances that he will accelerate proposals to change the law and ensure that we never have any of this nonsense again.

Kenneth Clarke: It is the rule of law, I am afraid. The hon. Gentleman is prejudging the claims that were being fought out before the courts. The claims were for compensation for serious problems that these detainees had suffered-I have met these people. The argument was about the complicity of the British security services, which was not and is not admitted. The detainees were bringing a legal action. It might be that had this ever been fought to a conclusion, the court might have come to the hon. Gentleman's conclusion that these claims were baseless, but we are never going to discover that now, because we have settled this. We did so as it was not worth discovering, because the bigger public interest was in making sure that we could put a line under all this, get back to having the reputation of our intelligence services restored and get Sir Peter Gibson to advise on how to make sure that that reputation remains intact in future.

Robert Buckland: Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that if these allegations were wild and unsubstantiated, as has just been suggested, the Government would not have been keen to settle these cases?

Kenneth Clarke: I think that in all forms of litigation it is wrong to start reading whether a settlement made with no admissions on one side and no withdrawal of allegations on the other indicates which side was winning-it does not necessarily do so. The fact is that these two sides were locked in litigation, which was going nowhere fast because of the very difficult legal problem of what evidence can be admitted and whether that evidence should be admitted publicly. If Members want, they can read into this that one side was admitting it or that the other side was producing frivolous claims and got away with murder. The court was entertaining these claims; 12 civil actions were under way. But I think everybody understands from the most extraordinary circumstances of this case that it was better to settle it than just to let it go on to see who eventually won. No one should read into this admissions of liability and no one should read into this that one side packed up its claims; we just agreed to come to a very sensible mediated settlement.

Paul Flynn: Can we demonstrate that we have learned the lesson of the damage done to our reputation by the protracted nature of these investigations by guaranteeing that when fresh allegations are made of bad behaviour, such as the 21 cases cited by The Guardian following freedom of information requests, those present and future allegations will be investigated swiftly and thoroughly?

Kenneth Clarke: That is why we need the Green Paper, in order to try to establish some rules on the admissibility of intelligence evidence or evidence that may be of relevance to national security. As I believe I said in answer to an earlier question, this issue is cropping up with ever more frequency and we need to resolve it. This is not just something that the Government or Parliament can simply declare we are going to do. We have to resolve this in a way that is compatible with the rule of law, with the judgments that British Courts are likely to come to and with the strong opinions held by the judiciary in this country in their role of defending our fundamental rights, the rule of law and the independence of the courts. We have to consider our international obligations. It will not be easy to produce a Green Paper, but that is the secret to getting back to resolving these matters at a decent pace. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's wish that we could do that, so that they can be sorted out pretty clearly, fairly and straightforwardly whenever they arise.

Geraint Davies: You will know, Mr Speaker, that my former constituent Feroz Abbasi was held for many years in Guantanamo Bay in intolerable conditions without charge and was later freed. May I ask the Justice Secretary that if members of MI5 or MI6 are found to be complicit in torture, what penalties will they face?

Kenneth Clarke: That is speculative. I should make it clear that the allegations in these cases were not, so far as I am aware, that any member of the British security services had directly been involved in torture or ill treatment. They were argued to be complicit-that is, they had known that others were doing that and had somehow been complicit, which is not admitted by the security services. That was the issue. No one, I think, has been accused of torturing. It would be a very serious matter if anybody in the British intelligence services was ever found to have taken part in torture or the deliberate ill treatment of a detainee.

Points of Order

Hilary Benn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised with you yesterday in a point of order the amount of time that the House would have to debate the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill when there was a possibility of there being one statement today. We have now had two statements that have taken an hour and 10 minutes out of our time. Members will, I think, find it particularly galling that one of those statements is the result of the leak on damages settlements, on which we have just heard the Justice Secretary report to the House. In these circumstances, Mr Speaker, what protection can Members be offered so that we have the opportunity properly to debate and discuss a major constitutional Bill that will change the way in which our democracy operates?

Mr Speaker: I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I fully understand the seriousness of his point. The short answer, however, is that these decisions-that is to say, decisions on the timing of Government business-are ultimately for others to make. Specifically, these matters are in the hands of the usual channels and, in particular, of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman might wish that it were otherwise, and many might agree with him, but that is the position as it stands. However, I simply say to him, as I was able to say to him yesterday, that his opposite number, the Leader of the House, is present. He will have heard what has been said and it is open to the Leader of the House to respond if he so wishes.

George Young: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It was not the practice of the previous Administration to add injury time when we debated constitutional Bills on the Floor of the House and it is not our habit either.

Mr Speaker: The exchange has taken place and we will have to leave it there for the time being.

Ann Clwyd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise a subject at the heart of public debate to do with the credibility of Parliament and the honesty of Members of Parliament. You will know that the Deputy Prime Minister has made numerous statements on the need for openness, transparency, probity and honesty with the electorate. Yesterday, I wrote to the Deputy Prime Minister asking for a copy of the paper on tuition fees written for him by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 16 March along with the paper by the Education Secretary on the same subject. Those papers are not Government publications but are public interest papers. Would you, Mr Speaker, be prepared to give the Library permission to hold those papers after I receive them?

Mr Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Lady has said and I shall happily look into this matter for her and for the House. Ultimately, of course, the decision on which documents that are in the hands of members of the Government are published by the Government, including perhaps being put into the Library, is a matter for the Government. However, as I have said, I have heard what she has said, I shall look into it and I shall revert to her when I have done so.
	We come now to the ten-minute rule Bill, for which the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) has been waiting very patiently.

Employment Retention

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John Robertson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a statutory right to an employment retention assessment to determine entitlement to a period of rehabilitation leave for newly disabled people and people whose existing impairments change; and for connected purposes.
	This is the fifth time that I have raised this subject in a ten-minute rule Bill, so if God loves a trier, he must adore me. I hesitate to add that I have seen off three Labour Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions; I hope that this coalition Secretary of State will be my first and last. Throughout my years of toil, it has become clear to me that there is firm consensus across the House that support should be provided to ensure that people who develop an impairment or become disabled can remain in work. The widespread support I have always received for this Bill is testament to the fact that the matter is not confined to the margins of society.
	Every quarter, about 600,000 people become sick or develop an impairment as defined by the late Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Within a year of doing so, 13%, or 78,000 people, will have left work. Of those people, about 25,000 a year permanently leave employment owing to illness or disability and never return. That works out at more than a quarter of a million people since 1997, which more than cancels out the previous Government's creditable achievement of having helped 200,000 disabled people into work in the past decade and will no doubt hinder the current coalition.
	We know that as a result of such barriers, a disabled person is nearly five times more likely to be out of work and claiming benefits than a non-disabled person. Crucially, once a disabled person is out of work they are far less likely to get back into employment. Behind these statistics lie people's lives, which often become unrecognisable as they suddenly have to come to terms with a permanent life-changing impairment while facing the prospect of losing their employment, their source of income and even, in some cases, their home.
	I have made these points before and I will continue to do so until a Government address the problem. Last week, the Secretary of State outlined his new universal credit reform of the welfare system, which aims to move more people from benefits into employment, but today I find myself again making the point that we need to focus on retention if we are to stop people falling into the welfare trap in the first place. I welcome some of his welfare reforms, and if he truly intends to make a constructive effort to put more people into employment, I hope that he will consider me and my Bill as a help and not a hindrance.
	I support the underlying principle of simplifying the benefits system and providing real incentives to work by creating a universal credit, but the universal lesson that the Government must take on board is that we will not get more people off benefits and into work if there is no work for them to go into. I agree that there should be real obligations, backed by sanctions, on people receiving out-of-work benefits, but they should be matched by rights and guarantees to work. An approach that involves too much stick and not enough carrot will not work.
	There are areas in which I am at odds with the Government. I find their plans to cut housing benefit by 10% for people who are out of work for 12 months, even if they have done everything possible to find a job, abhorrent. That is the wrong approach and, without going into more detail, is completely wrong, and not just on moral grounds. It will only add to the burdens of people who are already heavily laden with a disability, or are in rehabilitation, and will make it twice as hard for them to find a job.
	Another issue on which I disagree with the Government is the cut in local housing allowance, which will mean that nearly all the claimants in my constituency in private rentals will lose about £43 a month. That might not seem a huge amount, but for too many of my constituents, including those who have been hit by a debilitating injury, degenerative illness or ailment, it could mean having to find a massive chunk of their rent from somewhere else, thereby adding a further economic hurdle to those who want to remain in work.
	Another obvious area of contention is the employment and support allowance, which replaced incapacity benefit and income support. The Government plan to reduce the length of time for which someone can receive ESA, and some think that the sole aim of that measure is to reduce the welfare bill rather than to make sure that recipients return to work. We know from the previous Government's initiative in this area, pathways to work, that many unemployed people with disabilities take longer than 12 months to secure employment. The Shaw Trust, one of the largest charities to work with employers, social services and the disabled to help people with disabilities find employment, states that out of all the clients whom it has placed in work so far this year, 20% had been supported for more than 12 months before moving into work, and of those, a third had taken about 18 months. The trust also states that 63% of all its clients on incapacity benefit included in these figures had taken more than 12 months.
	Under the Work programme proposals, the Government estimate that around 58% of the 1.5 million incapacity benefit claimants will be moved on to the ESA work-related activity group. This would mean a large number of people being rushed through the programme, potentially only to leave that job because they cannot cope, have not adapted to their new disability, or are just not suitable, thus going back to square one. Matters could be made worse, as those with a new disability could be cut off long before a resumption of work or before rehabilitation is completed. Although the Government need to elaborate further on this area, they have not ruled out sanctions being imposed if ESA recipients have not secured a job. In any case, ESA recipients would face a reduction in income which would, in turn, place homes and family members at great risk.
	I mentioned that my Bill has received widespread support in the House and that this is shared outside the Chamber. On previous occasions when I have brought the Bill before Parliament, I have found support from a wide range of stakeholders, ranging from the Trades Union Congress to disability charities such as the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the Disability Rights Commission and even the CBI.
	Being made unemployed through ill health will have an effect on the individual's long-term well-being, and will also have an impact on the economy as many disabled people never return to work. The result is a strain on the state, a burden on pension funds and benefit payments, and even additional recruitment costs for employers to replace and train staff. Through the Bill, the Government, at relatively little cost, would be able to ensure that any regulatory burden on employers is kept to a minimum. It would be an investment that would reap the benefits in the short term for employers and employees, but in the long term for the Government through benefits savings and tax collected. As the Minister knows, for every 100,000 people who go on the dole, the cost to the taxpayer is £500 million. If we can reduce spending by 1% and raise revenues by 1%, we can reduce the deficit by £12 billon. In this Bill I offer the kind of thinking that will help us towards such goals.
	I hope that the coalition Government will get behind the Bill. This year alone, 25,000 people will be in need of these changes, and 125,000 people since I first raised the issue. All I ask of the Government is that they support the Bill, prove that they want to keep people in work, and work with all parties to achieve that.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That John Robertson, Jim Sheridan, Cathy Jamieson, Miss Anne Begg, Valerie Vaz, Lisa Nandy, Alan Keen, Mr Mike Weir, Alun Michael, Jack Dromey, Jon Cruddas and Jenny Willott present the Bill.
	John Robertson accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 February , and to be printed (Bill 107).

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

[ Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, HC 436, and the Government's response thereto, Cm 7951.]
	[1st Allocated Day]
	 Considered in Committee

[Mr Nigel Evans  in the Chair]

Clause 1
	 — 
	polling days for parliamentary general elections

Jonathan Edwards: I beg to move amendment 11, page 1, line 5, leave out '7 May 2015' and insert '1 May 2014'.

Nigel Evans: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 7, page 1, line 5, leave out '2015' and insert '2013'.
	Amendment 8, page 1, line 7, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'third'.
	Amendment 12, page 1, line 7, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'fourth'.
	Amendment 32, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (4) and insert-
	'(4) In determining the polling day for a parliamentary general election under subsection (3) above, no account shall be taken of any early parliamentary general election the polling day for which was appointed under section 2.'.
	Amendment 13, page 1, line 13, leave out '"fifth" there were substituted "fourth"' and insert '"fourth" there were substituted "third"'.
	Amendment 9, page 1, line 13, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'third'.
	Amendment 10, page 1, line 13, leave out '"fourth"' and insert '"second"'.
	New clause 4- Devolved legislature elections-
	'(1) A devolved legislature election may not take place on the same day as a United Kingdom parliamentary general election.
	(2) If a devolved legislature election is scheduled to take place on the same day as a United Kingdom parliamentary general election, then the date of the poll for the devolved legislature general election must vary by-
	(a) not less than two months, and
	(b) not more than twelve months and one week before or after the United Kingdom parliamentary general election date.
	(3) The appropriate authority shall make provision by order to vary the date of the devolved legislature general election, subject to agreement by the relevant devolved legislature.
	(4) The following election to that devolved legislature will take place on the first Thursday in May in the fourth calendar year following the polling day for the previous election.
	(5) A devolved legislature election is an election to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly.'.
	New clause 5- Varying of elections by the National Assembly for Wales-
	'(1) Section 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 ("Power to vary date of ordinary general election") is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1) after "May", insert ", subject to subsections (1A) and (1B)".
	(4) After subsection (1) insert-
	"(1A) If the scheduled date for a National Assembly for Wales ordinary general election is the same date as for a United Kingdom parliamentary general election, the National Assembly of Wales general election must be held-
	(a) not less than two months, and
	(b) not more than twelve months and one week before or after the United Kingdom parliamentary general election.
	(1B) The Secretary of State for Wales shall by order provide for the date of the poll of the National Assembly for Wales ordinary general election, with the agreement of the National Assembly for Wales, subject to subsection (1A).".'.
	Clause stand part.

Jonathan Edwards: I wish to speak also to amendments 12 and 13 in my name and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends, as well as new clauses 4 and 5. The amendments go to the crux of the Bill-the establishment of a specific period between elections and the date on which we hold the next UK parliamentary elections.
	My party is in favour of fixed-term Parliaments, for many of the reasons outlined on Second Reading. A fixed-term Parliament removes a Prime Minister's ability to seek the dissolution of Parliament for pure political gain, taking away that significant incumbency advantage-more of which later in my speech. It would end speculation about the timing of the next election and a near-obsession with opinion polls and psephologists about when an election might be called. It provides stability for the political programme, as we have found with the One Wales agreement in Wales, a four-year term, where parties understand what can and cannot be achieved within the required legislative time frame-even in our case where the byzantine workings of legislative competence orders have held up the progress of our law-making, denying us prompt action to solve our problems. By providing a settled timetable, fixed-term Parliaments provide a firm basis for electoral administration, taking away the shock of a snap election and giving a more generous timetable to ensure participation in the voting process.
	However, I cannot understand the Government's reasoning behind the insistence on a five-year legislative term, either in this parliamentary term or in the future. To be perfectly honest, there does not seem to be any reason. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government have consistently failed to provide a good reason why the next election should be held in May 2015, not in May 2014. On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister, with bizarre Liberal Democrat logic, presumably taken from a "Focus" leaflet bar graph, claimed that a five-year Parliament would probably amount in practice to a legislative working term of four years. As many hon. Members will already know, the five-year maximum term was implemented in 1911, but even that was introduced with the expectation that the working parliamentary period would probably be four years-a period in which, as Lord Asquith said at the time, a Government had either the political mandate from the previous election or the unwillingness to commit to unpopular decisions ahead of the next election.
	Four years-the length of time between elections for the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the London Assembly, the London mayoral elections and local authority, community and even parish council elections in all four parts of the UK-is quite clearly and obviously the norm for the electoral cycle in the nation states.

Tristram Hunt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, internationally, the four-year term is pretty much the norm, particularly in Westminster Parliaments? Is he further aware of the academic opinion from Robert Hazell at University College London's constitution unit to Professor Blackburn, who consistently say that five years is too long and smells like a political fix?

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. For every legislature where the Executive is decided from the legislature, the average is four years rather than five.
	The only elections that break that cycle in the UK are the European elections. The elections held and the terms that we expect are the same for elections at all levels, so why are the UK Government seeking to introduce a term that is different from all meaningful precedents?

Andrew Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that France has a different length, as does Australia? What is so special about four years?

Jonathan Edwards: I shall try to address those points later in my speech. I think that I addressed some of them in my answer to an earlier intervention.
	If four years is good enough for a local councillor, why should an MP be given any longer without once again putting themselves up for election to secure a democratic mandate? The argument has been made that, because the current system allows for up to five years between elections, that should be set in stone as the new norm, but that hardly seems proportionate or common sense. When there is a range of options, it is not normal to go for the most extreme, because more moderate measures make greater common sense and attract greater consensus, especially in this Chamber. Let us be honest: amid the rushed and hasty constitutional changes that the Con-Dem Government have been steamrollering through, consensus, consultation and a genuine attempt to reach cross-party agreement have, unfortunately, been greatly lacking.
	A fairer litmus test of how long a fixed-term Parliament might be is the average length of time between elections. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who I am glad to say will break with tradition tonight and, I hope, vote for an amendment in the name of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, noted on Second Reading,
	"the average length of a peacetime Parliament"-
	going all the way back to the Great Reform Act of 1832-
	has been three years and eight months."-[ Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 625.]
	That is a very important point.
	Similarly, as Robert Hazell of University college London's constitution unit noted in his written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, although the balance of Parliaments has been between four and five years, those that went the whole term were those governed by Prime Ministers who did not believe that they would win an election after four years. A five-year parliamentary term, as we saw between 1992 and 1997 and 2005 and 2010 in particular, is often therefore a result of the unpopularity of the governing party. It seems ironic that this Con-Dem Government, one of whose parties is already highly unpopular in Wales-with just 5% support, according to the most recent poll, in north Wales-should opt for the length of time that is associated with the failure to govern successfully and to govern with public support. Perhaps that is just an expectation of things to come.
	Why should this Parliament be for five years and not four? Why should we hold the election on 7 May 2015 and not on 1 May 2014? After all, when John Major and when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) stayed in power for five years, they were accused of holding on to power. Is the same accusation not true of the current Government? There appears to be no great reason why five years should be the chosen length of the new fixed-term Parliament.
	When questioned on Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared loth to give a fuller explanation. I hope that we hear a better account this evening, because neither was an explanation more forthcoming from other Government Members. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) reminded us that his party's election manifesto was for a four-year fixed-term Parliament, the proposal that my party supports. He said that he did not know when the policy was changed by the coalition agreement between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
	I have heard much from the Liberal Democrats in recent months about the need for agreement and compromise in coalition, but I am not entirely sure at whom the message was aimed, because my party has been part of a successful coalition in Wales since we signed the One Wales agreement in 2007. The key to success, I can tell the Liberal Democrats, was agreeing the policy programme before signing the deal, not making it up as we went along, which seems to have been the case with the UK Government. Being part of a coalition does not mean that we have to sell our souls; it means that we reach a practical agreement on policies.

Angus MacNeil: My hon. Friend talks about the merits of coalition Government, but in these islands there is a Government who have only 46 Members but manage to pass their budgets with majorities in the 70s and 80s. Coalition government is not always the way; there is also the minority government model, which is working very successfully in Scotland.

Jonathan Edwards: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I was remiss not to mention it.

Chris Bryant: Because it is not true.

Jonathan Edwards: We will have that debate later.
	A five-year Parliament was not in either governing parties' manifestos, and it was not put to a public vote. I often wonder, as I watch the coalition Government's policies morph before me and see stories about the coalition discussions leak out in books and in the Sunday press, just how much influence Back-Bench Lib Dems had over the policy negotiations. I wonder whether they, like me, wake up and wonder which policy of theirs will be changed today. As we are getting used to saying in Wales, "Another day, another Lib-Dem U-turn."
	So, we are still no closer to understanding why five and not four years is the chosen length for a fixed term of the UK Parliament. Perhaps a wag on the Government Benches-by that I mean a wit, not the more common tabloid usage of the word-was correct when she referred to the next election date as being " the date of the next election, cementing the coalition". Others think that this is a response to the economic cycle, and the hope is that by 2015 the worm will have turned and the tremendous gamble with our economy, our livelihoods and our communities that we witnessed in the comprehensive spending review will have paid off, and we will be enjoying the fruits of a hard-won recovery. Either way, it appears to be a decision made from political expediency, and that is not in the best interests of the electorate or democracy.

Louise Bagshawe: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister currently has the right to extend this Parliament to 2015 if he wishes, so how is it an aggregation of power for him to give up the right to call an election at the time of his own choosing?

Jonathan Edwards: I think that the debate is about whether there is to be five years or four years between elections. I will try to address the hon. Lady's point as the debate progresses.
	Many would say that the decision to run five-year electoral terms is a result of political expediency. I have a fair bit of experience of coalitions, and their policies should not have to be welded together in a back room in the way that those of the Con-Dem coalition have been. There is a huge irony in the Deputy Prime Minister's coming to this House to say that the coalition is taking away the Prime Minister's right to call an election at the time of his choosing, because it is not. This addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe). The one who is currently in charge can choose the longest possible time to be in charge providing that he can keep his own party happy.
	The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee notes that much of the evidence it received was against the idea of a five-year fixed parliamentary term. Neither constitutional experts nor the public are in favour of the new electoral system being set at this length of time. Indeed, some experts saw a note of irony in that by spacing out the time between elections at this maximum length, the active participation of many voters in the electoral system will be reduced rather than increased or improved, as many people, sadly, choose to mark their ballot paper only in a UK general election and do not participate at other levels of democracy. That is another issue that has not been considered properly in the discussions so far.
	On Second Reading, many Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), drew attention to the most salient concern-that of having the elections on the same day as other elections, specifically those of the devolved Administrations. There is nothing of what Aretha Franklin, or even George Galloway, might describe as "Respect" in the UK Government's treatment of the devolved Administrations in this affair, which has been notably lacking in meaningful consultation.

Angus MacNeil: Is not that point all the more serious with a UK general election, a Scottish election and a Welsh election possibly happening at the same time, lined up with the referendum? We want to avoid that because we know the media cannot handle it. That disservice will be done to Scotland not only this time but yet again in four to five years' time.

Jonathan Edwards: My hon. Friend is correct-it is a double insult. If these plans go through unamended, the next devolved elections in Scotland and Wales will be terribly skewed.
	During the debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, we discussed at length the principle of holding a National Assembly for Wales election on the same day as a referendum on the electoral system for the UK Parliament. Despite the objections of Opposition parties and, perhaps more importantly, those who make up the Welsh and Scottish Governments, that Bill was passed, once again showing up the Con-Dem Government's disrespect agenda for Wales and the other devolved nations. Ironically, even their best argument-the idea that savings would be made through combining the polls and electors would not have to traipse to the polling station more once-means little in the Welsh context, as we will already go to the ballot box in March for a referendum on the transfer of powers to the Welsh Government under part 4 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and then again in the following May. Of course, the referendum on further powers is far more relevant to the National Assembly elections than the referendum on AV.
	I am not here to repeat the arguments we have already had, although they remain equally relevant and valid to the amendment as they did to debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. That clash of elections will occur once every five terms for the devolved Administrations and once every four terms for Westminster elections. As yet, we have no idea when a reformed House of Lords will be elected. I am a great believer in not underestimating the public, and in publishing the Bill the UK coalition Government are failing to learn from previous practices and errors. Many will remember that the 2007 Scottish Parliament and local elections were held on the same day, with the result that there were an astonishing 147,000 spoilt ballot papers.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman cannot be allowed to get away with saying that all the spoilt ballot papers were because two elections were held on the same day. The reason was the poor design of the Scottish Parliament election ballot paper. There were two columns, and people had to put a cross in each, but the instructions were not clear. That was the reason for the spoilt ballot papers, not the fact that there were two elections on one day.

Jonathan Edwards: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point, but I was about to explain some of the complexities involved.
	That was, of course, the first election after a new system was introduced, with the single transferrable vote being used in local elections in Scotland. Fortunately, we in Wales had already learned lessons and decoupled our local authority and Assembly elections by a year.

Angus MacNeil: Although it is true that the main problem at the last Scottish election was the design of the ballot paper, covering both the constituency and list votes, the man who looked into the matter, Mr Gould, nevertheless suggested that different elections should not happen on the same day. There was a feeling that that had contributed to the difficulties, even though the main difficulty was the design of the ballot paper.

Jonathan Edwards: My hon. Friend makes a more informed contribution than I do, but I was just getting to the Gould report. It was an independent review by the Electoral Commission, and its conclusions and recommendations stated:
	"One of the more controversial issues in the 3 May 2007 elections was whether the Scottish parliamentary and the local government elections should have been combined on the same day. We were not surprised by the concerns that were expressed to us about this issue because pursuing combined or separate elections involves a trade-off of different objectives.
	If local issues and the visibility of local government candidates are viewed as a primary objective, then separating the...parliamentary from the local government elections is necessary in order to avoid the dominance of campaigns conducted for...parliamentary contests. In addition, separating the two elections would result in minimising the potential for voter confusion."

Ian Murray: The hon. Gentleman is making some incredibly powerful arguments. Would he like to comment on the fact that not only would Westminster and Scottish parliamentary elections clash every five years, but the exact situation referred to in the Gould report-a clash with Scottish local government elections-would happen every four years? We could have the alternative vote system for Westminster while running the single transferrable vote system for the Scottish local government elections, which, as the Gould report highlighted, would be a disaster.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and that seems to me a recipe for disaster.
	The words in the Gould report that I quoted make it clear to me, first, that elections should not take place at the same time when there is a trade-off between different objectives, as there clearly would be between a UK Westminster election and an election to the National Assembly for Wales or the other devolved Assemblies. Secondly, they show the problem of the dominance of one election over another. National Assembly for Wales elections are in no way inferior to UK general elections. To many people they mean much more, as they are a way of directly influencing the health and education policies that have an impact on everybody in one form or another.
	We must consider the impact of our media, and even the failure of our politicians to understand what is at stake at different levels. Who can forget, for example, the Conservatives using in a UK general election campaign the words of a woman in Wales, Julie from Llandudno, about her concern for education, even though the matter was not even being voted upon in Wales, where education is devolved? Such things have an impact on the perceptions of the electorate.
	In the spring, we faced a bizarre, presidential-style contest that was alien to our democracy, in which we elect candidates to Parliament and then usually select the leader of the largest party in the legislature to head up the Executive. There is no doubt that giving three party leaders additional prominence had an impact on an election in which minority party candidates were forced to buck the trend to be elected. Were that to happen at the same time as a Welsh election to the National Assembly, it would cause untold damage to our democracy as Welsh issues, concerns and policies would be steamrollered by the UK media. In Wales, and to a lesser extent in Scotland, we face media that are largely published in England and understandably promote English issues and concerns. When the King report was published two years ago, it was noted that in a month of prime-time reports on health and education, both of which are devolved issues, not once in 134 stories was there any mention of the fact that those policies did not affect Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. That was a criticism of the BBC-a public service broadcaster.

Angus MacNeil: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was as appalled as I was by a "Question Time" programme about two weeks ago. The issue of fiscal autonomy or independence, which is of crucial relevance to Scotland and, in a way, the UK, too, was raised by Nicola Sturgeon, but David Dimbleby just did not want to hear about it. Does my hon. Friend not think that that typifies the attitude of the BBC? Although the attitude was writ small in that case, in the event of an election it shows that there would be no interest at all from a London-centric point of view to air and properly discuss issues that affect the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Jonathan Edwards: Once again, my hon. Friend makes my point for me. What is important in this context is that the BBC is a public service broadcaster. I hesitate to say that the private sector is worse because it could hardly do much worse than nought out of 134. If this issue affects the BBC it will certainly affect the private press as well.
	The English or the UK-based media, which are, by and large, one and the same thing, have difficulties handling devolution issues. Given its high penetration into Wales, it would undoubtedly skew the National Assembly elections. That is a salient concern and one that the UK Government would be wise to heed before continuing down this route.
	The Gould report of 2007 says that although turnout is important, it is not the only or the most important consideration. Its conclusions and recommendations state:
	"More important is that they engage with the campaign in a meaningful manner and make a knowledgeable decision on their ballot paper."
	It recommends separating parliamentary and local government elections.
	It is quite clear that the recommendations of the Gould report could equally apply to a separation of UK and devolved elections, which involve very different objectives and issues-not least in devolved issues such as health or education where some parties will be giving voters mixed messages due to the different policies that operate in different parts of the UK.
	This clash will be further complicated by the changes to the UK-wide parliamentary constituencies, especially in Wales. In Scotland, however, the changes are already in place to some extent. Under the terms of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill-it remains as opaque as ever as to why we debated the alternative vote referendum and the cut in the number of MPs in the same Bill while debating a fixed-term Parliament separately-Wales will lose probably 10 Members of Parliament.
	That Bill also separated, or decoupled, the boundaries of Westminster constituency seats, which, under the new rules, will be set by the Boundary Commission for Wales. The rules make numbers on the electoral roll a more significant criterion than geography, history and other factors, and the National Assembly constituency boundaries will remain the same until the next Boundary Commission for Wales and will be set under the traditional rules.
	Although I agree in principle with those changes, it would have been ridiculous to have lost 10 Assembly Members from the National Assembly because of a change in the rules at Westminster. That was an obvious weakness in the Government of Wales Act 2006. Although the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill contained only one Welsh clause, no time was given in this place for proper discussions.

Ann Clwyd: Despite the fact that the majority of Welsh MPs asked for a debate in the Welsh Grand Committee, which was set up for such a purpose, the Secretary of State for Wales refused that request. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that is?

Jonathan Edwards: The right hon. Lady knows that I am in full agreement with her. It was very important that those issues were discussed. It was a disgrace that the Secretary of State refused that request.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are moving on to Bills that have already passed through the House. Please can we focus on the amendments before us?

Jonathan Edwards: These changes will have a clear impact as electors find themselves not merely with the added burden of an extra piece of paper to complete, as they will in the clashing elections next May and the alternative vote referendum, but voting for different constituency locations. I am proud to serve on the Welsh Affairs Committee in my first term in Parliament. The Committee received evidence from a number of organisations on these potential problems, and reported on them in our first publication of this Session, entitled "'The implications for Wales of the Government's proposals on constitutional reform". We heard, for example, testimony from Lewis Baston, senior research fellow with Democratic Audit. He said that
	"the elections for Westminster and the Assembly would be taking place on different systems on the same day, and more complicatedly on two sets of boundaries which will hardly ever correlate with each other."
	Philip Johnson told our Committee that the coincidence of elections could have "horrendous" consequences in 2015.

Chris Bryant: I respect Lewis Baston enormously, but he is slightly wrong: there would be three different sets of boundaries in Wales and Scotland, because there are majority elected seats as well as regional seats. There is no guarantee in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill that UK parliamentary boundaries will respect the boundaries of the regions used for Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament elections, so there will be three different boundaries.

Jonathan Edwards: I was coming to exactly that point. Electors will have three ballot papers: one for the Westminster constituency, which will be a separate location from the Assembly constituency, and a third paper for Assembly regional candidates. Scotland already has distinct UK and Scottish Parliament boundaries, but they remain fixed in Northern Ireland.

Ian Murray: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way to me again. If the Scottish parliamentary and UK elections were held on the same day, is it outwith the realms of possibility that my constituents would have to go to two separate polling stations?

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman highlights the potential for organisational chaos in the 2015 elections. I am concerned about those elections from an organisational viewpoint.
	That decoupling might lead to Westminster and the National Assembly for Wales having very different constituencies, and surely to confusion between different candidates, different policy areas and different locations. Just as importantly, there will be confusion because different electoral systems are used and different local authority electoral services will take responsibility for different counts.

Angus MacNeil: Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), surely the answer to avoiding the clash of dates is to give the devolved legislature or Government the power to change the date of elections, whether in respect of Cardiff, Holyrood or Belfast. If people foresee a clash with the US presidential election, for example, a Westminster election or-who knows?-the cup final, they could change dates.

Jonathan Edwards: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. That is the intention of some of our proposals and I am grateful to him for that important contribution.

Mark Field: The hon. Gentleman makes the reasonable point that there is a risk of confusion, but will he cast his mind back to the situation that pertained in London in 2004? We had a mayoral election, a Greater London assembly election, which featured a top-up list, and a full European election on the same day. The reality was that there was no sense of any great confusion among Londoners. I am sure that the Welsh electorate is no more stupid than the London electorate, and therefore that it would find a way to make the proposals work.

Jonathan Edwards: Obviously, my fears might come to nothing, but I see no reason why democracy should be held hostage to fortune in that way. The complication, of course, is how the media report different elections. That is the big difference between London elections and those for the devolved Administrations.
	We are aware of the potential pitfalls, and I see no suitable way of dealing with them except by holding the different elections apart from each other. Of course, those are the known unknowns. As yet, we have no way of knowing the unknown unknowns between now and the next set of elections.

Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned one problem with holding different elections on the same day. Many who apply for a postal vote for the Westminster election will assume that they will automatically receive a postal vote for every election, but in fact, they will not, because they need to apply separately for a postal vote for the other elections.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the potential for organisational chaos in 2015 and about participation in those elections.
	From the perspective of candidates, another argument against the five-year fixed-term UK Parliament and the clash with devolved Administration elections is that political parties in those countries will need to find suitably more candidates to contest those elections-probably about 90 in Wales, if the Con-Dem Government have their way with the boundary changes enacted in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, and about 180 in Scotland.

Nicholas Dakin: The hon. Gentleman makes a lot of pertinent points about the difficulties in Wales in particular. Can he enlighten us on what consultation has taken place with the devolved Assemblies on these proposals?

Jonathan Edwards: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's point simply: hardly any.
	Returning to the point about candidates, I am confident that my party will have no difficulty in finding quality candidates the length and breadth of Wales, although it might be a different matter, of course, for smaller parties, such as the Liberal Democrats. However, ensuring quality coverage, so that the electorate can become familiar with the people, and not only the party, for whom they are voting, will be doubly difficult if they are all fighting for air time.

Pete Wishart: I am sure that my hon. Friend is looking forward, like I am, with great anticipation to finding out how the Minister will reply to this debate. On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was minded to move the date of the election. Is my hon. Friend aware of any Government amendments dealing with this matter, or is this yet another Liberal broken promise?

Jonathan Edwards: My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. Obviously, if there had been changes since Second Reading, I would not have had to make this speech or table these amendments.

Alan Reid: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be arguing that the right length of time for this Parliament is four years. His whole case seems to be that there will be a clash of elections every 20 years. I agree that it would be a bad idea for both elections to be on the same day, so were the Government to give the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly the power to alter the date of their elections, would he withdraw his new clause?

Jonathan Edwards: I made it clear earlier that my preference is for four years and, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has said, the norm has been three years and eight months. Why go to five years, therefore, if the norm over the past 200 years has been three years and eight months? That seems tried and tested.

Pete Wishart: Why on earth should it not be this House that moves its dates? When this Bill was introduced, the Government knew there was to be a Scottish parliamentary election in 2015? Is it not the ultimate disrespect that this place expects the Scottish Parliament to move on its behalf?

Jonathan Edwards: Once again, my hon. Friend makes an important point.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is being a little unfair to the Liberal Democrats. So far it is not a broken promise, but just a promise. It might become a broken promise, but at the moment it is just a promise.

Jonathan Edwards: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that correction.
	On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared somewhat surprised that having elections on the same day might cause problems. In fact, he seemed slightly perplexed, as if he had not previously considered the possibility. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who noted that there was provision in the various devolution Acts for those legislatures to vary elections by up to four weeks only, the Deputy Prime Minister said:
	"That is exactly...why we need to consider whether the existing provisions are sufficient."-[ Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 627.]
	That was commented on shortly after by the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who, quite understandably, wondered why, if the Deputy Prime Minister was already aware of the potential for problems, no provision had been made in the Bill to counter them. Admissions of that sort show up this Bill as having been flung together, rather than considered and properly scrutinised.

Angus MacNeil: Would it not be a great sign of maturity from the Government if they could accept new clause 4 and accept that various legislatures-be they in Westminster, Holyrood or wherever-have the right to pick their own window for an election in order to avoid clashes with another legislature and to allow the media the time to communicate properly with the populations? The latter will be difficult, as BBC "Question Time" the other week proved.

Jonathan Edwards: That would certainly further the respect agenda that we have heard so much about from the UK Government since their inception.
	I am afraid that admissions of the sort that we heard from the Deputy Prime Minister show this legislation up as having been flung together rather than considered properly. The UK Government told us on Second Reading:
	"We take these issues seriously and are not just paying lip service to them."-[ Official  Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 702.]
	However, we have no new amendments on the issue to discuss in Committee, and no answers have been given to the questions posed about how the Government plan to deal with those concerns. I hope that we will hear more from the UK Government on the issue today, as requested by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in our first report. Nobody in Wales has any confidence that their voice is being heard for as long as the UK Government continue to steamroller their policies through without time for due consideration and scrutiny.
	What type of separation is acceptable? At present, the only available option is for elections to be varied by up to one month. In the case of Wales, the power is held by the Secretary of State for Wales. Eagle-eyed Members will have noticed that I have tabled a series of new clauses to deal with that eventuality: in particular new clause 4, which refers to the devolved legislatures in general, and new clause 5, which refers to the Welsh situation in particular. Those new clauses would provide a mechanism for varying the date of the National Assembly for Wales general election and the elections to the other devolved legislatures in Scotland and Northern Ireland, by between two months, and 12 months and a week, so as to avoid a clash with UK parliamentary elections under the new fixed-term system.
	I also tabled related amendments to the Government of Wales Act 1998, which would transfer those powers from the Secretary of State for Wales to the National Assembly for Wales, as I believe that a democratically elected body representing the people of Wales should be in charge of electoral conduct, not a Secretary of State who frequently has no mandate. Sadly, new clause 6 has not been selected by Mr Speaker, so we will not have the opportunity to debate that context fully.
	Our amendments were tabled as it had become patently clear that the UK Government were planning to bury their head in the sand. My new clauses were tabled to ensure that the issue of separate general election dates for the devolved legislatures was discussed in Committee. To explain that in more detail, the various Acts of devolution allow for a variation of one month between the scheduled date for the election and a date on which it can be held, as I said earlier. Presumably those powers are to be used in exceptional circumstances to allow leeway should an unexpected occurrence take place, as happened in 2003 with the outbreak of foot and mouth disease. In contrast, clause 1(5) gives the UK Parliament the power to expand that period to two months under those circumstances. I presume that in neither case was it assumed that the date would be varied because of another election being held on the same day. In Wales and Northern Ireland, those powers to vary the date of the general election are in the hands of the respective Secretary of State, whereas in Scotland they are, I believe, in the hands of the Presiding Officer.
	In the absence of any indication from the UK Government that they plan to deal with the issues raised by holding UK parliamentary and devolved legislature elections on the same date, our new clauses would provide a mechanism for holding devolved elections on a separate date at least two months before or after the UK parliamentary election, yet no more than 12 months and one week before or after that election. The date of the devolved legislature election would be recommended by the appropriate authority, with the consent of the devolved body. Two months is the absolute minimum that one could expect to be the difference between one set of elections and another. Under those circumstances, we would expect the devolved legislatures to recommend holding an election either close to the opposing equinox-be that late spring, between March and May, or mid-autumn, at the end of September or in October-or a full year apart, as we do at the moment, with the UK election taking place in May this year and the devolved legislatures going to the polls in May 2011. The clock would then be reset, so that the next election would take place approximately four years later, on the first Thursday in May.
	The nature of fixed-term Parliaments-let us remember that we have had no need for early, extraordinary general elections in Wales or Scotland since their introduction-means that changes can be made in a timely and orderly fashion, so that nobody is in any doubt about when the next election will take place. However, this is not a perfect solution. It allows for variations in the length of a Parliament or Assembly, and therefore changes the notion of a fixed-term Parliament or Assembly. We made our suggestion to remind the Government that a problem exists and that the present restrictions do not allow enough time to avoid a hangover from one election to the next, even if they are held a month apart, not least for our exhausted election campaign teams, never mind the public.
	The variation of one month between elections, which legislation currently makes possible, is better than holding them on the same date, but is clearly not sufficient to ensure avoidance of cross-pollination between one electoral event and another. I have set out our preferred position, which is to have a sensible and systematic four-year, fixed-term Parliament. That would avoid all those problems. There is not a problem at the moment and nothing is broken, so why are we making trouble in the Bill?
	To return to amendment 11, holding a UK election in May 2014, even under a five-year timetable, would at least provide more time to decide how to deal with the problems. If the UK election were held in 2014 and we continued with devolved legislature elections a year later, the next clash would not come until 2019, giving us a further electoral cycle to come to terms with the issue. That is not an ideal solution-I have made it clear that I believe that a four-year fixed term would be considerably preferable-but it would at least buy additional time to debate and enact safeguards.
	Two suggestions other than ours have been made. One is worthy of further discussion, although I do not necessarily agree with it. It was suggested by Professor Hazell, and it is that UK general elections should take place in October, thereby ensuring separation from all other elections. I would like to hear the Government's thoughts on that proposal because it might solve some of the issues that I have raised today. The weather would still be mild, it would be during the school term, and it would still be British summer time. The greatest problem would surely be MPs having to give up their summer holidays to campaign. It is also the conference season.
	Another alternative, if we assume that the new political cycle will be five years and not four, is that the term of devolved Administrations should be changed to represent this new reality and should elect their Members every five years, thereby avoiding the concerns that I have laid before the House today. Again, that is not the favoured outcome of my party, and it is not the policy of any of the devolved legislatures or their Governments, but it is another solution that can be offered to meet some of the problems created by the Bill.
	My amendment to hold UK parliamentary elections every fourth year, rather than every fifth year as in the Bill, is not the only one being spoken to today. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) will argue on amendments 7, 8, 9 and 10 that elections should be held every third year. On Second Reading, he referred to Australia and New Zealand, which are both great countries and both great rugby countries. Australia is led by a woman who originally came from Barry in Wales, and New Zealand is an example of the possibilities for a coherent coalition Government. However, I am rejecting this suggestion for some of the same reasons that I believe that a five-year term should be rejected: that it is not in keeping with the UK's traditional four-year electoral cycle.
	Lord Asquith referred to the length of terms and the ability to provide a parliamentary legislative term between elections every three years. In my opinion, three years would be too short for a Government to come into being, develop their legislative programme and begin to enact it before being judged by the electorate. Four years seems to be a far more suitable time frame for people to judge whether a Government has been successful in keeping to their mandate and in improving the country.
	Under amendment 32, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and others, the date of an election would be enshrined in the Bill, and would be held on the first Thursday in May every five years, irrespective of any extraordinary general elections, instead of the clock ticking again after an early election. If the amendment were accepted, we might find ourselves with more frequent clashes than once every 20 years between elections, and if that were unacceptable in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it would be doubly so if it took place because of instability in this place.
	One problem of not restarting the clock at every election is the possibility, or even the probability, of a lame-duck Government. If an election were held three and a half years into the term, a Government elected democratically at the polls would have only 18 months before facing the people again. As I have outlined, that is not enough time for a serious parliamentary legislative programme to be enacted, so it makes no sense to return to the polls so soon after an extraordinary election. This is where we must trade off between the certainty of knowing every election date until Wales and Scotland leave the Union with the practicalities of governing, so I shall not support amendment 32.
	I am arguing today in favour of a four-year fixed-term Parliament, beginning with this current parliamentary term, with the next election taking place on 1 May 2014. There is nothing inevitable about clashes between different levels of elections, but that will be an outcome of the introduction of a fixed-term Parliament that runs on a timetable that is at odds with the established political electoral cycle of other devolved legislatures.

Jim Shannon: If the Northern Ireland Assembly were to say that it wanted its elections to run alongside the Westminster elections, would the hon. Gentleman accept that that should be able to happen? Or is he saying in his amendment that that should not happen?

Jonathan Edwards: In our view, the decision should be made at the appropriate level.
	There are four-year electoral terms for the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and all other devolved bodies and councils. The arrangements should be the same for the UK Parliament. We do not yet know when we will be voting for the House of Lords, a principle whose implementation we have been awaiting for quite some time, or for our police commissioners-an idea that excites no one save those on the Government Benches. The five-year terms of the European Parliament are an aberration from our electoral norm. The proposals in the Bill would also be an aberration.
	A four-year Parliament beginning in 2014 would have the advantage of avoiding the problems associated with clashes between UK general elections and those of the devolved legislatures, which are many. The Bill has been presented to Parliament as a fait accompli, with no good reason as to why the next election must be in 2015 and why there must be five-year Parliaments. Political expediency is not the best principle on which to base good law-making. I fully support the concept of fixed-term Parliaments, but I cannot support a five-year fixed-term Parliament that will have strongly negative effects on democracy. I hope that the UK Government will see sense on this matter and respond positively to this suggestion, rather than putting their head in the sand and trying to brazen through a five-year parliamentary term without consensus in this House or among the other Parliaments in the UK. We shall be pressing amendments 11 and 12 to a vote, and we will not support clause 1 if it remains in its present format.

Richard Shepherd: I shall support all those amendments that propose a four-year fixed-term Parliament, and in so doing I shall invoke someone who when I was growing up was considered a great Liberal. Mr Asquith spoke in the Chamber that preceded this one, and, in a recent debate on 21 February 1911 on the Parliament Bill which was to change the Septennial Act 1715, he said:
	"In the first place we propose to shorten the legal duration of Parliament from seven years to five years, which will probably amount in practice to an actual legislative working term of four years. That will secure that your House of Commons for the time being, is always either fresh from the polls which gave it authority, or-and this is an equally effective check upon acting in defiance of the popular will-it is looking forward to the polls at which it will have to render an account of its stewardship."-[ Official Report, 21 February 1911; Vol. XXI, c. 1749.]
	Asquith's reasons have been borne out in all the years since then. The average length of a Parliament is not far off four years, and his points relate to the electorate. None of the constitutional proposals of the Deputy Prime Minister-who I again note is not following his own Bill on the Floor of the House of Commons-strengthens the position of the electorate versus the Crown as represented by the Government. The proposals are therefore abandoning the principle that a Government have the authority to govern but must be mindful that there is a time after which the electorate should make a judgment on the actions, activities and success of that Government. That is all being cast out for what I believe to be a profoundly cynical purpose: the entrenchment, or attempted entrenchment, of a particular Parliament for five years. That requires a Bill. I do not know whether it is possible to present clause stand part arguments on the basis of parliamentary privilege and the series of very serious arguments that lie behind what we are discussing.

Mark Tami: The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that the Bill was really all about the current Parliament, and about holding the coalition together. No thought has been given to what it actually means for the future; it is just about holding the coalition together today.

Richard Shepherd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I believe that that will be the wider judgment. What was reflected in a previous Bill is emphasised in this Bill.
	The Bill has not, of course, received pre-legislative scrutiny in the traditional way, but nor did Asquith's Bill. That Bill was an attempt to bring together the threads of our constitutional history. What distresses me most about this constitutional arrangement, and the actions of the coalition Government, is that they think that we are all back-of-the-envelope legislators who set aside the traditions and history of our own constitution. They are trying to legislate for something that I believe is unnecessary. A Government last for as long as that Government can command a majority in the House of Commons: that is a fundamental constitutional proposition in the Parliament Act.

Mark Field: My hon. Friend will know that I share many of his fears about the Bill, along with the other constitutional change that has been proposed. However, in so far as we are to have fixed-term Parliaments, might it not be regarded as even more cynical if we moved away from the five-year norm which has, as my hon. Friend says, been in place for the last 99 years, even if that five-year norm is a maximum?

Richard Shepherd: The point is that the coalition Government have set their heart on five years, so that is the proposition that we are examining. I was trying to advance the arguments that were presented to the House as recently as 1911, but the post-1945 chart, featuring 17 or 18 elections, shows that, in all but four cases, the average length of a Government has been about four years. The principle behind that is fairly closely related to what Asquith said. It is right that there should have been a recent renewal of a Government's mandate; it is right that a Government should be mindful that they face an election. But if we are to adopt fixed-term Parliaments, what is the right period, given that the Government concerned command a majority in the House?

Mark Field: In fact, there have been 17 elections since 1945, and the average length of a Government has been three years and 10 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that when the four-year term has been the norm, that has been because a Government have gone to the country at the time that they feel is best for them, whereas when a term lasts for the full five years, that has generally been because the Government in question had very little choice? In other words, there has been an element of expediency-one might even call it cynicism-behind the actions of Governments who have used the maximum five-year term for their own benefit.

Richard Shepherd: There is, of course, no question about that in my mind. Governments will try to engineer an election at the moment that is most convenient for them, although it may not be the best point in the cycle of public opinion, or relate to the sense of the House as a settled House.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman said that Asquith's Bill did not receive pre-legislative scrutiny. Does he agree that we might be more relaxed about a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny if the Government were willing to reach out, listen, and take ideas on board-considered ideas that were not on the back of an envelope? May I suggest, in the context of new clause 4, that whether we support four years or five, it makes sense to allow other legislatures in the United Kingdom to alter, or tweak, what they are doing in relation to either Westminster or a five-year term?

Richard Shepherd: There is a simple amendment which the hon. Gentleman did not table, and which was not discussed in the lengthy and closely read speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards). That amendment would state that the general election must take place on, let us say, the first Thursday in October. That would meet the point for which the hon. Gentleman argued at such great length-that he should not have to deal with the coincidence of elections on the same day. He did not table that simple amendment, however, and as it is not on the amendment paper I cannot speak to it.
	I find Professor Blackburn a most interesting speaker on the constitution. In the evidence he gave in a memorandum on electoral law and administration, he makes the following point:
	"In the UK, there can be little doubt that the period between general elections should be four years."
	That is what we are debating now, and it is arguable. He continues:
	"The proposal for fixed term Parliament as a whole should fit as closely as possible into existing constitutional expectations, and the idea that four years is about the right length of time between elections is very prevalent. It was the period expressly approved of as being normal in practice, when the Parliament Act set the period of five years as a maximum."
	That is a reference back to Asquith. Professor Blackburn goes on to say:
	"In an ideal democracy it may be that there should be elections as frequently as possible-even annually as supported by the Chartists in the eighteenth century".
	The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is present, has tabled an amendment proposing a period of three years, and we could refer back to the Chartists, so it is clear that these arguments were not unfamiliar at different times in the history of this country. There was an argument that we should have annual elections; that was a powerful movement in the early 19th century. It was thought that Parliaments and Governments must not move too far from the opinion of the public and the electorate.

Tristram Hunt: Professor Blackburn's speech is particularly interesting, because he goes on to say- [Interruption.] Well, I will let the hon. Gentleman read it out then, because the key point is in the following paragraph.

Richard Shepherd: I have lost my place as a result of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, so let me recap what Professor Blackburn said:
	"It was the period expressly approved of as being normal in practice, when the Parliament Act set the period of five years as a maximum. In an ideal democracy it may be that there should be elections as frequently as possible-even annually as supported by the Chartists in the eighteenth century-but a government must be allowed a sufficient period of time in which to put its programme of public policies into effect before submitting its record of achievement, or otherwise, to the voters. Three full legislative sessions, and certainly four, is sufficient for this purpose."
	I believe that that is correct.

Chris Bryant: I agree with the point made in the quotation that the hon. Gentleman has read out; indeed, I was going to refer to that passage in my speech. For the sake of accuracy, however, I should point out that the Chartists were really in the 19th century, not the 18th. I hope that that does not invalidate the historical record.

Richard Shepherd: What a trivial point, but I thought I had said the 19th century. I stand corrected if I did not, and I am sorry if I misinformed the Committee.  [Interruption.] No, I do not think I was quoting at that point.  [Interruption.] I said the 19th century, I think. I am well aware of that fact; it was part of my own training.
	The central issue, however, is the legitimacy of Governments and the determination of what is the right period for enabling the people to have a view, and control, over the Crown as represented by the Government in this place.

Anne McGuire: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman. I can see from his face that he is not particularly happy about it. However, may I ask him to make his position clear? Does he feel that there should still be flexibility in the calling of elections, or does he support a four-year term? I am a little confused as to where he is taking his argument.

Richard Shepherd: I am sorry if that is the case. I am speaking in support of those amendments that call for a four-year Parliament, as opposed to the Government's position, which is that there should be five-year Parliaments. I accept, of course, that Governments face exigencies. We well remember that Mr Blair postponed an announced date of an election because of a nationwide country alarm over foot and mouth disease. There has to be an element of flexibility for such circumstances. War would clearly alter the schedule for elections too, and Parliament has within its means the ability to extend the period at such times, because this is the sovereign body for the United Kingdom. That point should be borne in mind: however much I may rejoice in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, in Wales and the Welsh Assembly, and in the arrangements in Northern Ireland, the Westminster Parliament is the fount of the authority under which national elections for this place are held. Therefore, although the House should bear in mind any exegesis on inconveniences, ultimately it is for those of us who are sent here by the people to represent them to decide what is in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole in the formation of a Parliament that holds to account the Government whose Members sit on the Treasury Bench in this House. That is all; I am, in truth, making a very simple argument. I think four years is more appropriate than five. That is what this is about. I think there is sufficient flexibility.
	I have cited certain authorities, such as Professor Blackburn and Asquith. I do not want the argument to be lost to a lot of academic writers, however. Professor Hazell at University College London is a former civil servant; he worked in the Cabinet Office. I want to hear about the great constitutional writers who informed past debates, but that is singularly missing when this House comes to discuss what is right. We do not talk about the experience of previous times.
	What is the reasoning behind this clause? It appears to suit the personal convenience of a coalition. Most people I meet see and understand that perfectly well. Why would we support such a measure if we are representing the people and the interests of this House of Commons? That is the burden of the arguments I am putting forward for a four-year term rather than five years.
	I also want to repeat that I regret that the Government have made no case for five years. That has been a major omission in all these constitutional debates. They assert, without authority or reference to anything, that the needs are such that five years is somehow a more suitable period. By and large, I do not believe in international comparisons, but I note that most modern democracies-the United States, for instance, with its 200-year-old constitution and President-work to a four-year cycle in determining who is to be their chief executive. The United States works to a six-year cycle, with third terms, for the Senate, and a two-year cycle for its equivalent body to our House of Commons. Our tradition has been different.

Mark Field: Does my hon. Friend not appreciate that if we are to have a fixed-term for this Parliament, five years is the only acceptable period? If any other term had been proposed, that would have been felt to be entirely cynical. Is not my hon. Friend's argument essentially that these changes should only be put in place for future Parliaments? We were all elected on 6 May on the basis of a set of rules for getting rid of a Parliament and for the terms and duration of it. These proposed measures for fixed-term Parliaments should take effect for future Parliaments; they should not bind this one.

Richard Shepherd: I was elected under the law as it then stood, and I expected that the length of term in place at the time would apply. I also expected that any Prime Minister would make decisions in that context. As well as my question of the relationship of the electorate to the House of Commons to the Executive, there is another that hangs over this entire argument: why do we need any of this? What improvement does it bring to the current position?

Mark Tami: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that neither Front-Bench team argued the case? I cannot recall anybody having argued for a five-year term, apart from now, when it is convenient for the coalition parties to wed for this period of time.

Richard Shepherd: The proposal suits the Government for their own purposes, and that is why the nation at large is cautious, as are many Members on both sides of this Chamber.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many of us may well be cautious, because although we are concentrating on the question of a fixed-term Parliament, when we move on we will be examining the question of an early general election and questions of confidence-confidence in whom and for what? We will also deal with whether such questions should be decided by a simple majority or one of two thirds. These hugely important questions go straight to the heart of the future of this Parliament.

Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. This is a hugely important constitutional Bill and we should not doubt that. Every commentator of any serious worth has noted that this is an enormously important constitutional issue and we will try to tickle out its ramifications, including for parliamentary privilege, within our very tight timetable. What he says is true and just, and we should listen to it.

Neil Carmichael: I note my hon. Friend's observations about America. Of course, its terms really are fixed: the Senate cannot alter its six years, the President cannot alter his four years and Congress cannot alter its two years. What we are saying, which is consistent with the Parliament Act 1911, is that five years would be the expected norm. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) notes, at least two mechanisms could bring an end to a Parliament should this House decide, so we are stopping the Prime Minister from having an election early for expedient purposes. Instead, we are saying that there should be a five-year term, as suggested in 1911 and as used by several Parliaments afterwards-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Interventions are supposed to be brief. I think that Mr Shepherd has got the gist of the point.

Richard Shepherd: I make the gentlest of suggestions to my hon. Friend that he misleads himself. I provided the quote from Asquith which set out the position as the House then understood it, and it has turned out, by and large, to be correct over the intervening years. I do not want so to close down the options of this House that when a Government fail or cannot command a majority there is not a general election, as such an election is necessary for the public will. However, as the long title makes clear, we are looking at a Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and the suggestion on the table is for the term to last five years. I do not understand where my hon. Friend is coming from if he thinks that in 1911 the proposal was for a full five-year term-it was not.

Andrew Bridgen: This is a most intriguing debate and my hon. Friend speaks with great passion and impartiality about these important matters. Surely this Parliament can opt for a five-year Parliament but it cannot bind future Parliaments. Should those Parliaments wish to change the arrangement, they will be able to opt for a four-year or a three-year Parliament, or whatever they should wish for at the time.

Richard Shepherd: But the options are closing. This measure is part of a constitutional package. We passed a piece of legislation that may introduce a new electoral system and that may ensure that no one party has an overall majority in the future, so to say that we are able to change something will be a matter of great negotiation across the Floor of the House. That is why I am very cautious about accepting changes to established norms and constitutional practice as we have experienced it over my lifetime and since 1911.

Pete Wishart: The hon. Gentleman talks of Asquith, but may I bring him up to date with perhaps a less illustrious modern Liberal, the Deputy Prime Minister? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this measure is all about survival? It is about a Liberal deal to try to get this coalition through and not at all about any great, grand constitutional reform. It is about the survival of the Liberals in this Government.

Richard Shepherd: We all draw our own conclusions, and I suggested something. What we are clear about is that the Deputy Prime Minister has just repudiated Liberal Democrat-as they now call themselves-fixed positions on two Bills. The first was the voting system, and the Liberals are doing the same on this measure; they had a fixed position but it is gone. We ask what the motives are, but there is no point in my attributing motives-the world and its wife will do that for us, so we do not need to worry about it.
	What we want to maintain is the constitutional right of the people we represent and the balance of power within this Chamber between the Opposition and the Government, and between Front Benchers and Back Benchers. All that is now at risk and has been for a long time. We have to have that respect in ourselves back in this House; we have to believe that we can talk to Government freely and frankly. The purpose of my speech was, in part, to create a debate, rather than just to make a statement of fixed positions, because the calibration of each Member of Parliament is an important right in itself. This House must find that when dealing with something that most of us have not experienced before: a coalition. One party of that coalition took no part in the negotiations that formed what I call the "image of gold" but what is known as the coalition agreement; no one on my side formed that, other than those who are now in the Executive. So this matter is very difficult and very sensitive, which is why people are very delicate about it. However, we are now dealing with the substance of our old constitution and the merits of that, and it is its merits that I believe are stronger than the proposals put forward by the coalition.

Austin Mitchell: I rise to speak to amendments 7 and 8, which stand in my name and ask for triennial Parliaments. That makes me feel positively like a constitutional Trotskyite, coming forward as the blazing radical in this song and dance for a five-year or four-year term. Amendment 11, which proposes a four-year term, is perfectly acceptable as it is a good amendment. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) quoted from Asquith's powerful and effective speech. I was going to refer to it at length, but I shall not now do so because he has given us it pretty well in full. That speech set out that in legislating for five-year terms the then Liberal Government were actually saying that the expectation would be for earlier elections, so that was to be a maximum term, not the norm. The provision before us attempts to create a norm of five years.

Andrew Bridgen: Would the hon. Gentleman just remind the House how long the previous Parliament ran for?

Austin Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman bides his time a little, I shall deal with exactly that point. He is making the very sensible point that bad Parliaments last for five years and Governments in precarious or disastrous situations try to hang on for as long as possible. That perhaps indicates why he is not going to support this Bill: it is an indication that his Government are going to try to hang on for as long as possible-for five years.

Neil Carmichael: At least one manifesto that has come to my mind was entitled "The Next Five Years"; I believe it referred to 1959 to 1964, and so it turned out to be. So at least then the norm was five years, and there really are more normal expectations of that than meet the eye.

Austin Mitchell: Again, that was because the then Government were hanging on, as Macmillan was replaced by Sir Alec Douglas-Home. They had to hang on to the bitter end, which was October 1964, because they were disastrously placed in the polls. That is another example to support my argument, which is that bad Governments want the maximum. This Government are a bad Government and they are trying to legislate for the maximum-they are trying to set bad practice in concrete.

Angus MacNeil: As I listen to the hon. Gentleman, I wonder whether cause and effect are a bit mixed up. One complaint that we have had in the past is about the Government holding an election at a time of their choice when they feel the runes are looking good for them rather than fixing the democratic process in some way so that the gerrymandering of polity and of the climate in the country could not happen. The idea of having a fixed Parliament is exactly that. It is best fixed at four years, I think-the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is best fixed at three-but the problem in the past has been that it has been for five years and was then cut short. It is not the length of time that makes a Government bad; it is just that bad Governments run out of time but would keep going for six or seven years if they possibly could.

Austin Mitchell: I accept that point. The argument for fixed terms used to be that Governments would manipulate the economy to suit their own purposes and would go to the country when it suited them. Now Governments are so disastrously buffeted by economic circumstances that they will seek to hang on as long as possible.

Neil Carmichael: How bad does the hon. Gentleman think the Attlee Government were from 1945 to 1950?

Austin Mitchell: In fact, they created the-

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. First, it is not necessary for the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) to wave-he simply has to stand up. Secondly, can we stay within the scope of the amendments? I think the Attlee Government might be a little wide of them.

Austin Mitchell: The second Attlee Government lasted from 1950 to 1951. However, that was an attempt to detour me and I do not want to be detoured down all the happy little roads that Government Members would rather turn us into.
	I think that four years is perfectly acceptable. It would be good and I would be happy to support-indeed, I will support-that amendment. Three years would be better. It is not a downward option-it is not like the old programme that Yorkshire Television used to do, so that we go five, four, "3-2-1". I will not go as low as the Chartists' demand for annual Parliaments; I am staying at three. Around the world, a pattern can be seen-the more democratic the society and the polity, the more frequent and regular are the elections. I would put at the head of that democratic tree Australia and New Zealand, which have three-year Parliaments that work happily. I used to write about New Zealand that if there was a seizure of power by the Chinese Communists, New Zealanders would still be standing outside the polls in November of every third year ready to vote because they have the conditioned habit of voting. It is a good conditioned habit and three years is a good term.

Ian Lucas: Is not the important point about this Bill the fact that it is a five-year Parliament Bill?

Austin Mitchell: Yes.

Ian Lucas: That is the key issue for the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. They do not care whether it is a fixed Parliament or not, but it has to be five years in order to preserve their political position.

Austin Mitchell: I agree entirely. I am sorry to have interrupted my hon. Friend's intervention with the answer to the question, but that is right. This is an arrangement by two parties seeking to hang together, to bind themselves to each other and to carry on for five years. There is no system of constitutional thought or political theory-it is sheer, simple opportunism.

Tristram Hunt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) did not give the key quote from Professor Blackburn, who said:
	"It is likely that the Coalition's concern with concretising its political alliance, and having the longest period possible in which to implement its tax increases and cuts in public expenditure and then recover sufficient popularity in time for its next meeting with the electorate, has affected its judgement in this matter."
	Is it not politics that is driving this rather than any grander constitutional vision?

Austin Mitchell: As an ex-academic, I find that the best way of alienating the House is to quote other academics, so may I just say yes to that question and move on?
	I was making the point that around the world, the most democratic polities-I gave Australia and New Zealand as the examples-have more frequent and more regular elections. The less democratic polities have longer spaces between elections-witness the French presidential system, where it was seven years, or the old British constitution when it was an oligarchical system with seven-year terms. This is an issue of basic democracy.
	The measure is not an attempt to think about the constitution and to reform it along sensible lines; it is a political fix. The Government have just gone for the longest time they think they can possibly get away with. That is it. They want the coalition to be bound together, nailed together and stuck together for five years and they hope that they can do that with this measure. They are entrenching bad practice. Most Governments in this century have gone for shorter terms than sitting out the maximum. As I said earlier, it is only the bad Governments-the failing Governments-who have gone right up to the buffers. Governments who are in a mess cling on because they are deeply unpopular.

Alec Shelbrooke: On the specific point that it is always a failing Government who go the five years and cling to power until the last before leaving, I recall that the 1987 to 1992 period resulted in the same party being returned.

Austin Mitchell: I am baffled-I mentioned Governments in a mess and a Government Member stands up to tell me that the mess was bigger than I thought it was. Is that the point he is making? My point is quite simple. There are deeply unpopular Governments-Governments in such a state as this Government have reduced themselves to in six short months-who hang on to power.

Alec Shelbrooke: The hon. Gentleman refers to a Government reduced to the state that this Government are in. They are easy words, but will he clarify his comments?

Austin Mitchell: Falling behind in the polls, implementing unpopular measures, failing and visibly disagreeing with each other-is that not a description of the coalition Government at present? They have achieved that after six months. It took John Major's Government more than four years-certainly within five-to reach the state that this Government have reached in six months. That is my point. Governments in that situation normally try to hang on. The two examples that I would give are the Major Government, which went right to the buffers, and my own Labour Government this year, which should have gone to the country in 2007, when a new Prime Minister took over, but hung on hoping for better things that did not come.

Neil Carmichael: May I just say that this debate has nothing to do with changing the Prime Minister during the five years? That is not in the Bill at all. We are discussing the length of the Parliament.

Austin Mitchell: I see another detour on the route map so I shall not go down that road. I had my own proposals once for a maximum six-year term for Prime Ministers. The current Prime Minister said during the course of the election that if the Prime Minister changed, there should be an election within six months of that change-something that seems to be missing from the Bill but which have been relevant.
	The Government are trying to entrench bad practice in this Bill and our amendments-mine for a very democratic three years and amendment 11 for four years, a sensible and statesmanlike version of my democratic stirrings-are trying to stop them doing so.

Andrew Bridgen: The hon. Gentleman talked about bad practice. Does he agree that an example of the worst sort of bad practice was the farce that was the autumn of 2007 and the election that never was?

Austin Mitchell: I just said that it would have been sensible had the Labour Government gone to the country in 2007-not only because we would have won, but because it was good and it would have been right to ask for a new mandate for a new Prime Minister. The Labour Government made a mistake and in consequence they hung on too long towards the end. I cannot see that I can break down and make any more confessions in the Chamber. That is an assessment of political reality. That is what Governments who are in difficulty do-they hang on-and that is what the Bill seeks to entrench.

Jonathan Reynolds: My hon. Friend is making some very good points about Governments hanging on for five years, but is not the crucial point that if all precedent and practice in this country are for four-year Governments, and four-year terms for other directly elected positions, the Government need to advance a strong case for extending the period to five years? They simply have not done that; indeed they refuse to do so. Is that not what we should consider today?

Austin Mitchell: I agree absolutely, but that argument relates to amendment 11, which seeks four-year terms, whereas I am arguing for more democratic three-year terms, so I must have a more radical argument than the statesmanlike argument that we have just heard. We should all ask ourselves where the five-year period comes from. Where have the Government plucked it from? What is the inspiration behind the Bill? Perhaps we could have some explanation of why a five-year period has been chosen. It was not in the Conservative party manifesto.

Eleanor Laing: rose -

Austin Mitchell: Ah, perhaps we will hear an explanation.

Eleanor Laing: May I suggest that it comes from the current law that a Parliament can run for five years?

Austin Mitchell: And trains could run on time, but they do not always. If the hon. Lady had been here for the speech by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, she would have heard the answer: five-year terms are the maximum, but the expectation is that Governments will go to the country sooner. Most do go sooner because that is sensible practice, which is what the amendment seeks to install.

Eleanor Laing: I am afraid that I have to disagree. There is no expectation that a Parliament should run other than for five years. In the past century, there have been some five-year and some four-year Parliaments. There is no such expectation, but there is a law and it says five years.

Austin Mitchell: It says up to five years, and the Government are seeking to make five years the compulsory length of a term, so far as they can entrench that in the constitution. Had the hon. Lady heard the preceding debate, she would have realised that, historically, most Governments have gone to the country before their five years were up.

Alec Shelbrooke: That is all very well and good, but the hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that, for the first time, Parliament, and not the Prime Minister, will have the power to dissolve Parliament.

Austin Mitchell: Parliament will have the power to dissolve Parliament on a two-thirds vote, I think, in this ludicrous legislation, so I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I am saying that we should legislate for three-year Parliaments, which would be sensible, and I am asking where the five-year term has come from. How did it come into the heads of this Government? Did it spring fully armed from the head of the Prime Minister?

Simon Hart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Austin Mitchell: I have taken enough interventions for the time being. I want to make a few points of my own instead of being forced to respond to questions about hypothetical situations that I have not dealt with.
	The Conservative party did not mention fixed-term Parliaments in its manifesto, but we did: Labour had a fixed four-year term in its manifesto. The Liberals, insofar as they had a position-they always have a lot of contradictory positions-had what the Deputy Leader of the House said when he was their spokesman on constitutional affairs, when he urged four-year terms. Perhaps he has had a message from the new leadership telling him to rescind his speeches from when he was the Liberals' constitutional affairs spokesman. Will he listen? I know that he is very comfortable on the Front Bench-he is built for it-but there is no need for him to change his views on this issue so radically and dramatically as he seems to have done.
	So the Liberals wanted four-year terms, the Conservatives had nothing about it in their manifesto and I argue that five-year terms are too long. I agree that we should have had an election in 2007. That would have meant the Labour Government going much sooner. Why am I proposing three-year terms? The Executive always want longer terms, because they want to be in power for as long as they can and because longer terms allow more time for more mistakes and for tough measures to hit the people. There are certainly some tough measures coming from this Government, which might be why they want a five-year term. Regular and more frequent elections hand power back to the people, which is what the people want. They want us kept on a shorter leash. That is what the feeling of hostility to politics, Parliament, parties and politicians that built up last year indicated to me. Triennial elections would certainly keep us on a shorter leash because we would have to go back to the people more regularly. They are suspicious of us; they think that we are out for ourselves and they want to control us more effectively.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is being customarily generous in giving way. Does the experience in the congressional elections in the United States not show that their two-year terms mean that members of Congress, once re-elected, are constantly considering fundraising, canvassing and campaigning for their re-election, thereby undermining the electorate's faith and trust in them?

Austin Mitchell: The US House of Representatives, which is the equivalent to our House, has a two-year term, which is very democratic, but I am proposing a three-year term, which would cause us to go back to the people much more regularly than we do now. The people want to be heard. An outstanding feature of our democracy as it has developed is the people's desire to be listened to by this place, which they so angrily asserted in 2009. It is frustrating for people to feel that we do not listen. What better way is there of consulting the people? We should do it not through polls but through regular elections, as in Australia and New Zealand, where three-year terms work very effectively.
	The people want us to be accountable, and more regular elections are the best way of keeping us accountable. Elections bring a great renewal of energy and contact with the people. They are great for concentrating our role of representing them and voicing what they want in this place; they recharge the batteries. More frequent elections would make us more vulnerable, more amenable and more prepared to listen to the people because we would have to be out there every three years listening to and meeting people and persuading them in a way that is not provided for anywhere else in our system.
	This House is a great hiding place: the longer we stay here between elections, the more out of touch with the people we get. They want us to be more accountable and to listen more and they want more frequent contact. We cannot dodge that responsibility or say that reasons of statesmanship or coalition politics require us to stay hiding in this place, out of touch with the people, for five years. The condition of our being here is that we need to renew that contact as regularly as possible.
	I seem to have been here for so long that I could have come in with that Asquith election victory that led to reform of the House of Lords in 1910, but I began my political career by dreading elections because one has to go out and force oneself on people and they may not want that. One has to leap up to them with a handshake and a fixed grin. One has to give them one's opinions, listen to them and ask them questions-talk to them. That was a nervous ordeal for me and I was terrified, but over time I have come to like elections more and more, particularly if I win. That is another reason why I would like more frequent elections. They are a form of renewal and of contact with the real world that we do not otherwise get in this place.

Nicky Morgan: It is very entertaining to hear about the hon. Gentleman's campaigning techniques and fixed grin, but would three-year terms not simply promote short-termism? One thing that the electorate do not want is short-term thinking in their Governments and politicians. They want them to take the right long-term decisions for the good of the country.

Austin Mitchell: And what happens now as Governments sit in power for up to five years? They tremble at what the  Daily Mail says to them about the angry middle classes, they fear what  The Daily Telegraph says and they are denounced by the  Daily Express. That kind of jelly-like impact is something that I want to avoid. Let us not listen to what the  Daily Mail tells us the people think-let us listen to the people. Let us go back and listen to them more frequently, because their opinions are honest. They are not distorted for some party political purpose by a newspaper like the  Daily Mail or  The Daily Telegraph, which caused my Government and cause this Government to quake. Let us listen to the people and not to those who arrogate the voice of the people for their own purposes.
	Elections bring us into contact with a section of the electorate that cannot speak through the  Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph or the  Daily Express-the deprived, the poor, the unemployed. Our job is to serve those people, and elections are a means of renewing that contact, which is difficult to maintain with the parliamentary week, the legislation before us and the burdens of this life. Elections send us out to the people-all levels, all ranks, all types of people. We are open and exposed, we are there to answer their questions and to talk to them, listen to them and discuss with them.
	That is why elections should be more frequent. They are basic to the democratic process. They are not a David Dimbleby-fest, a David Butler-fest or a psephology-fest-a calculation of figures. They are a people-fest.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is always entertaining, and I pay tribute to the fact that on the day the Labour party lost a 22,000 majority in 1977, they returned the hon. Gentleman in Grimsby, but will he tell the House how many people in the Dog and Duck in Great Grimsby have said to him, "I won't vote for you, Mr Mitchell, because the term will be five years instead of four "?

Austin Mitchell: None, but perhaps people will not vote for a candidate because he is too old and might not last a full term. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the issue is not frequently raised, but there is a feeling, and there was at the end of the previous Government and at the end of the Major Government, that the Government have gone on too long. That is what I want to avoid.
	There is a feeling among the public that they want us to go back to them more frequently. They want to meet us more frequently. They want us out there in the streets, canvassing more frequently. That is why I say that more frequent and regular elections are basic to democracy. They put the people in power and they make the politicians prostrate before the people. The people can tell us what they want, and that is what it is all about.
	The role of the House, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, is to hold power to account-to hold the Executive to account. We do not do it very well because, with a party majority, the Executive and the Prime Minister drive a steamroller through the House. Mrs Thatcher would shout down at us "Get out of the way," and we would tremble. With John Major, the steamroller wandered all over the place, but the Executive are still powerful.
	The only real way of holding power to account in this country is to put it before the people more regularly in triennial elections and give them the power to throw the rascals out-give them that choice every three years. That is basic to democracy.

Richard Shepherd: And does not the Front Bench demonstrate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making? There is not one Cabinet Minister in attendance on an issue of constitutional principle. There is no one arguing or representing the Administration in a proper sense on a major Bill. As he well knows, I respect the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), but the point is made.

Austin Mitchell: I accept that point from my hon. Friend. It is a shame that even the Deputy Leader of the House has gone out to check whether he supported four years when he was a constitutional affairs spokesman-or was it three and a half? He is probably on his BlackBerry now, checking the figures. It is demonstrably wrong that a Government should propose to the House a basic alteration to the constitution, which has enormous constitutional repercussions and which has not been discussed or properly assessed or pre-digested, force it though by a party majority, and not bother to attend the debates to speak in favour of it.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Gentleman has clearly outlined the need for the democratic process to operate over a three, four or five-year period, but does he agree that there is something wrong with such a Bill coming before Westminster without consultation with the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament to have their view on the process, so that we can all have a democratic say about what happens?

Austin Mitchell: I agree absolutely. That is the best indication that this is a constitutional fix, a coalition deal, a rather squalid political manoeuvre, rather than a matter that can be discussed and presented to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and discussed with the legislatures there, because it has repercussions for them as it does for us.
	I had better come to a conclusion. The conclusion is simple: three-year Parliaments would give the people the power that they need and want not only to keep us accountable, but to throw the rascals out-throw out the Government if they do not like them-every three years. I hope it is a power that they can exercise sooner than May 2015 on the present lot.

Andrew Percy: I shall make a short contribution. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) for a four-year term. I am not quite so enamoured with the idea of three years, and I shall say something about that in a moment.
	However, I could not agree with the manner and the tone of some of the contributions in the past hour or two from the Opposition Benches. Silly comments about Con-Dem Governments, political posturing and so on are not helpful to an important debate about the constitution of this country. I do not believe for one moment that any kind of dodgy, underhand dealing is going on.

Anne McGuire: If the hon. Gentleman repudiates that intention, why was there no attempt to reach a cross-party consensus on a major constitutional Bill?

Andrew Percy: I am just a lowly Back Bencher. I cannot answer that question, but the right hon. Lady has made her point and no doubt Ministers will respond to it when they come to the Dispatch Box.
	It is important to remember that the subject of the Bill is not one that electrifies the public. We are all in agreement about that. In the Dog and Duck they do not talk about it. In my village the pub is well known-the Percy Arms-and the topic does not come up a great deal there. It is not something that people are talking about or that is tripping off people's tongues, but that does not mean it is not important. It should be debated properly. Perhaps that is a partial response to the right hon. Lady's point.
	I have been staggered by some of the comments by Opposition Members-the feigned outrage about a five-year term. Many of them were in the previous Government over the last five years- [Interruption.] Sadly, the country knows what it was like as well. I want a four-year term because the experience of the last Government, and perhaps earlier Governments, shows that a five-year term is not necessarily in the best interests of the country. Governments generally expect to go to four years, although there is no requirement for them to do so. When they have run to five years, it is usually because they have known that they were about to be booted out by the electorate. We thus end up with a year of incredibly poor decision making, and this Government have to deal with the consequences of the appalling decisions taken in the last year of the Brown Government.

Alec Shelbrooke: On my hon. Friend's point about Governments campaigning in the last year, one of the things that I find most disturbing is the premise that in a five-year Parliament, Members take no notice of their constituents until the last year. That may explain why the majority of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) fell to just 714.

Andrew Percy: I hope that politicians on all sides take notice of their electorate at all times. The problem with going to a three-year term is that they may take less notice of their constituents and a great deal more notice of the newspapers. Given that Governments tend to be most responsive to newspapers in the last year or six months before an election, the risk with a three-year term is that the Government would be beholden to the newspapers and chasing headlines for the entire term of office.
	On the clash of elections, I have sympathy with those representing countries with devolved Assemblies. I would not want a Welsh Assembly election or a Scottish Parliament election on the same day as a general election, but it is a bit inconsistent for some on the Opposition Benches to suggest that a clash of elections is always bad news, because they deliberately arranged for that by holding European and local government elections on the same day, using two different voting systems. However, that is best avoided. I accept that the case for a general election is a little different and that a general election should be held separately from the elections in the devolved regions.
	I have no academic or study to quote on the four-year term; I just feel in my gut that it is the right length of time for a Government. A four-year term is better because it would fit with local government elections and devolved assemblies. The Canadian Government changed from five to four years a couple of years ago, and we have heard about the three-year terms that exist in Australia and New Zealand. For me, four years would be a more appropriate term for us to be in office. There is an acceptance that after being in power for five years, we tend to be a little too detached from the electorate, and consequently end up making bad decisions. However, I cannot support the three-year term proposed by my near neighbour, next door but one, in Great Grimsby. That would throw us into a perpetual state of elections. It is often said about US congressional elections that American Congressmen are in a perpetual state of election, which is why they have so many earmarks and pork barrelling; they have no sooner got themselves to Washington DC than they have to run back to their electorates to try to gain election.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend refers to the American political system and reiterates my earlier point, but is it not true that at the other end of the scale US Senators, who have a six-year term, can take a broader view of both national and international issues? Very few people say to an experienced American Senator that they are past it or clapped out, or not thinking of the good of the country because they are in their fifth or sixth year.

Andrew Percy: The problem with the American Senator term is that a third of the Senate is elected every two years, which means that they, too, are in a perpetual state of elections, so that idea does not carry over completely.
	The other experience of more regular elections is that there tends to be a greater propensity on the part of the electorate to re-elect their incumbents. As I am now an incumbent, that is not necessarily something that I would take issue with. I suspect that all hon. Members would be happy to see incumbents re-elected- [ Interruption. ] Well, yes, perhaps their own incumbency re-elected. I was particularly intrigued by the comments of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby that elections offer the opportunity for politicians to recharge their batteries. That is certainly not an experience I have ever had in an election campaign.

Graham Stringer: Are not comparisons with the Congressional elections inappropriate, because Congressmen, by and large, manage to insulate themselves from the electorate because they do not have independent boundary commissions but negotiate their constituency boundaries so that 85% of the seats are safe? Therefore, there is no real comparison; when they go to face the electorate most of those Congressmen know they are going back.

Andrew Percy: I was involved in that in New Jersey in 2000. Such matters were determined on a state-by-state basis and depended very much on who was in control in that state. It is not quite the case that Congressmen themselves are busy dividing up their own seats, but there are examples where that happens.
	I conclude where I started. For me, a four-year term feels more natural. As I said, I have no academic support for this argument. To go to the electorate every four years, which fits in properly with the elections in Scotland and Wales, feels the right thing to do. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendments and I look forward to the comments of Opposition Members who, having enjoyed a five-year term, now seek to criticise the Government for seeking to continue them.

Chris Bryant: I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on advancing his amendment before I got to the Table Office when I would have tabled exactly the same amendment. His alacrity is in the interest of the whole House, and he is right to have tabled his amendments, as I hope to lay out.
	I also congratulate the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), who always speaks with an independence of mind, which compliments both the House and his electors. He is right that this is about the entrenchment of Government. This measure is not proposed because there has been some grand constitutional convention that has consulted the country about the appropriate length of the Parliament and has consulted academics or voters; it is simply here to entrench this Government at least until May 2015. That is primarily why it exists. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said that he felt-I was not sure whether he said in his waters or in his guts-that four years was better than five, and he is absolutely right. If one looks at the contributions made by most constitutional experts, as the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills asked us to do, all have said that four years is a better term than five. It is also right to say that the process that has been gone through for the Bill is inappropriate.
	The Government have often said that in the first Session of a Parliament it is difficult to consult on Bills, because Parliament suddenly needs something to discuss. My argument would be that that is not the time to bring forward constitutional Bills. There may be legislation on other matters which has been well adumbrated in manifestos and well discussed, but it is wholly inappropriate to proceed with constitutional Bills without pre-legislative scrutiny and some attempt to bind together all the political parties so that there is an agreement that this not just a settlement for one Parliament or for five or six years, but one that will stand the test of time and last several decades.
	The hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) said that this is a good idea because it will prevent the Prime Minister from being able to choose the date of the election. That is not true. The Bill makes it clear that the Prime Minister will always choose the actual date of a general election. It is perfectly possible for the Prime Minister to make sure that there will be a general election, as laid out in clauses 1 and 2, because Prime Ministers can, if they wish, engineer a vote of no confidence, precisely as happened in Germany in 1982 under Chancellor Kohl, and in 2005 under Chancellor Schröder. There is no reason why a Prime Minister should not choose to do that.

Neil Carmichael: Surely those points ram home the argument that five years is a good spell, because the hon. Gentleman has just admitted that from time to time we could break it and have an election earlier, but the norm would still be five years.

Chris Bryant: I will come on to why I think five years is an inappropriate length of time. However, I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I will admit lots of things in this speech, but I will not admit what he has just told me to admit.
	My argument is essentially that four years is a better term for a fixed Parliament than five years. A five-year legislative provision for a maximum length of a Parliament has served us not too badly and may well be okay, not least because it has meant in practical terms that Parliaments have tended to be more like four years, precisely as Asquith intended in 1911. But a fixed five-year term is overlong, and the main reason why we have that is because the Government want to continue until May 2015, which is an inappropriate use of constitutional reform.
	The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole said that he was absolutely certain that there could not have been any underhand skulduggery. I think he was using irony, if not sarcasm, and irony does not always translate perfectly into  Hansard. His Dog and Duck test is right. The vast majority of voters are not obsessed with the length of a Parliament, but they do know when a Parliament has had its day, and for the most part, by the time we get to four years in this country, certainly since the second world war, most electorates have started to say, "You know what, it's time we had a general election."

Alec Shelbrooke: First, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no reason right now why this Parliament will not go to May 2015-it is perhaps just wishful thinking on the Opposition Benches-and, secondly, will he confirm whether his party supports fixed-term Parliaments?

Chris Bryant: Yes, I was just about to come on to the point that I wholeheartedly agree with fixed-term Parliaments. It was wrong for Conservative, Labour and, for that matter in the past, Liberal, Whig and any other kind of government to be able either to cut and run, as the Deputy Leader of the House said in a sedentary comment earlier, or to choose to hang on until something comes along. It is better to have a fixed term.
	Interestingly, in 1950, Stafford Cripps-your predecessor, Ms Primarolo, by I do not know how many-argued forcefully to Clement Attlee that there should be a general election before a Budget, because, if the election were held after, it would look as if the Government were trying to bribe the electorate, which would be wholly inappropriate.

Alec Shelbrooke: Those were the days.

Chris Bryant: Those were the days, eh? When high-mindedness ruled.
	The point is surely that it should not be within the power of the Government to determine the rules. It is like the situation in which everybody is running a 100 metre race, but the starting gun is held by the person in charge, and sometimes he decides to shoot some of the runners instead of just starting the race.

Andrea Leadsom: I agree that constituents reach the point at which they feel that the Government need to change, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is often in part because constituents are desperate for the Prime Minister of the day to announce a general election? Having such certainty to a reasonable extent will therefore obviate the need for constituents to wonder, "When is the election going to happen? When is the date? It can't happen soon enough." That certainty will surely improve the situation.

Chris Bryant: Yes, of course. The hon. Lady is right in the sense that constituents will not have to worry about the date of the election. In fact, newspapers and the BBC will have to employ considerably fewer journalists, because they will know the date of the general election and actually have to obsess about something else. However, the past 50 years have shown that, for the most part, once a Parliament has run for more than four years, either the Parliament itself is so fed up with the Prime Minister that it chooses to change the Prime Minister before holding a subsequent general election, or the country is becoming pretty fed up.

William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, really, this is not a fixed-term Parliament Bill at all? I mean not to criticise but to ask him a question, because, contrary to what he says, the Government do not make all the rules, the House of Commons does. If the House decided to go for a confidence motion because it happened to be fed up with the Government in question, as it did over Maastricht, we could end up with the situation in which the Government lost control. Then there would be a general election, and there would be no fixed term at all.

Chris Bryant: That is right, but that is a point in relation to clause 2 and at the moment we are dealing with clause 1.  [ Interruption. ] At the moment we are talking about clause 1. In fact, the Bill is not really a fixed-term Parliaments Bill, because it does not determine how many days it should sit within those five years; it is a fixed-term elections Bill: it determines when elections shall be. There are things that we need to change in relation to Prorogation and so on, and we shall come on to that at another point in the debate, but, for the most part in this country, after four years and often before, the mandate on which the Government were elected becomes pretty thin, and they start doing things-sometimes pretty unpopular things-that were not clearly outlined in their manifesto. The party or parties might have made all sorts of commitments before they went into government, but events come along or the Government suddenly discover things that mean they have to break those manifesto promises or commitments, and the longer that a Government go on after four years, if they do so, the more likely they are to undermine respect for Parliament.

Alec Shelbrooke: The hon. Gentleman, in his outrage, is almost saying that we are attempting to increase the length of a Parliament, but we could go to May 2015 as things stand in statute today. That does not involve extending the length of this Parliament. His other point is that Parliaments can run out of steam over five years, but that has been the problem of previous Governments, because they have governed in the short term, rather than for the long term and for the good of the country.

Chris Bryant: That is where there is a need for a balancing act, and that is why I do not support a three-year Parliament, which my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) advocates, or a five-year Parliament. I support a four-year Parliament, which in most constitutions throughout the world seems to be the period at which people have arrived. The Government would have at least three good Sessions in which they could advance their legislative cause, and if they wanted to do difficult things in the first and second years but retain their ability to recover their position in time for an election after four years, they would be able to do so.
	One of the other things that happens in government itself is that, after four years, a lot of people become pretty tired. That was certainly true in the previous Parliament, in John Major's Government and in Baroness Thatcher's Government, and, because of that concatenation of tired people, many more ex-Ministers no longer have an investment in the future and do not intend to stand at the next general election, so in practice attendance in the House is much lower during the last year of a five-year Parliament than in the preceding years.

Stewart Jackson: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, and he is making an engaging argument on a threadbare premise, if I may say so. Is not his argument essentially weakened by the fact that there is a mechanism to deal with an atypical event? I refer him to the controversy of 1979 over the Scotland Act 1978. That Parliament had been going for four years, and there was a vote of confidence on 28 March 1979. In other words, four-and-a-half years into that Parliament, the issue was considered of such import to the affairs of state and to the House that a motion of no confidence was tabled. Such a motion can still be tabled under this Bill. Therefore the value judgment between four and five years falls down. It would only really stand if the House had no capacity to dismiss itself and enter into a period prior to an election.

Chris Bryant: I have to presume, as does the House, that the Government will go through with all the various provisions that they have laid down in the Bill, and in clause 2 there are two provisions for an early general election: the first determines what happens if there is a motion of no confidence, although it does not say what such a motion is; and the second relates to a motion for an early general election, although it does not say whether such a motion would name the precise date of that election. The Government presume that we will need a two-thirds majority in the House to achieve an early poll, so on the Government's argument-and, if the hon. Gentleman is going to support the Bill as it is, on his argument therefore-the presupposition is that there will not be many early general elections. Indeed, the Bill, by trying to make it almost impossible to have an early general election, is much tougher than the vast majority of other constitutions that I have looked at throughout the world. That is another reason why four years is better than five. In fact, the hon. Gentleman has helped me to make part of my argument.
	In relation to the intervention by the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), I believe that in practice the Bill will lengthen the Parliaments of this country. Since 1832 there have been 45 general elections: the average peacetime length has been three years and eight months, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr said; even including the lengthy wartime Parliaments of the first and second world wars, the average has been only four years; and, during the period when the maximum allowable duration under the Septennial Act was seven years, from 1832 to 1911, the average was three years and 10 months. In practice, by fixing elections as "every five years", we will lengthen Parliaments and ensure less frequent general elections.

Stephen Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: Of course-it is good to have a new entrant into the debate.

Stephen Williams: While we are discussing historical events, will the hon. Gentleman concede that some of those shortened Parliaments occurred because of the practice, which no longer exists, that when a monarch died, Parliament was dissolved?

Chris Bryant: In fact, looking through the list, that applies to remarkably few of them. It is absolutely true that there used to be the provision that there should be a general election on the demise of the monarch. That has not pertained for quite some time, however, and it certainly does not apply to any of the general elections of the 20th century.

Louise Bagshawe: It is false to say, as the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends have said, that the aim of this Bill is to entrench the power of the Government. If the Government wish to remain in office until 2015, they need do absolutely nothing, as they already have that within their power. Does not some of the weariness in Government to which he referred-a salient point-come from endless speculation about the date of the election, as in the previous Parliament, dating from 2007 when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) ascended to the prime ministership?  [ Interruption. ] I am sorry for mispronouncing Kirkcaldy. If we know that there will be a fixed date for the general election, will not that remove the endless speculation that leads to weariness in Government?

Chris Bryant: Since the hon. Lady represents Corby, she should at least be able to pronounce the names of the Scottish parliamentary constituencies, as most of her constituents are Scottish. It is a great delight to see her joining us in the debate-we have missed her for most of it thus far.

Louise Bagshawe: indicated dissent.

Chris Bryant: I apologise if the hon. Lady has been there and I have not happened to notice her-she usually sits closer to the Front Benches.
	The hon. Lady's point is wrong. The main reason for large elements of the Bill, particularly in relation to when an earlier general election can be called, is the desire to keep the coalition together. That is why we had the options for 55% majorities, as originally proposed, and then 66%. It is the superglue element of the legislation, which is there wholly for cynical purposes to try to keep the coalition together. Otherwise, I suspect that there might be a point at which the leader of the hon. Lady's party might want to cut and run and get rid of her unpopular lightning conductor of a Deputy Prime Minister.

Mark Durkan: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a fixed-term Parliaments Bill that will entrench anything in the system, but rather a "fix for this Parliament" Bill that merely represents the expedient and the ephemeral embracing each other to cope with the unexpected?

Chris Bryant: Yes, indeed. That would be the ultimate "Brokeback coalition", I suppose.

Neil Carmichael: I want to talk about the hon. Gentleman's statistics. Looking back at the previous century, we had two elections in 1910, elections in 1923, 1924, 1951, 1959, 1964 and 1966, and two elections in 1974. He cannot give us an argument based on an average. He needs to highlight the Parliaments that really mattered, most of which were Conservative ones, as opposed to trying to massage his argument by bringing in Parliaments of a few months or a bit more. Funnily enough- [ Interruption. ] I was about to finish.

Chris Bryant: Funnily enough, of course I can advance an argument that is based on the average length of Parliaments, because the practical experience of voters over the past two centuries is that Parliaments have not gone on for more than four years. Therefore, if we are going to fix it for the future that they will always go on for five years, the hon. Gentleman and those who wish to take the Bill forward without amendment intend to extend Parliaments and provide for fewer general elections-that is just a fact.
	Only four Parliaments since 1945 have lasted roughly five years. In three cases, a change of Prime Minister had intervened in the meantime: the Parliaments from 8 October 1959 to 15 October 1964, when Harold Macmillan handed over to Sir Alec Douglas-Home; from 11 June 1987 to 9 April 1992, when Baroness Thatcher -she was not a baroness then, obviously-handed over to John Major; and from 5 May 2005 to 6 May 2010, when Tony Blair handed over to the former Prime Minister. In addition, the longest Parliament of all in this period was John Major's, which ran from 9 April 1992 to 1 May 1997. It is difficult not to argue that in each of those cases the electorate had wanted an election before the election was eventually held.

Lee Scott: Does the hon. Gentleman think, by that measure, that the European Parliament should not have five-year terms and that they should be reduced to four years? If so, why was it not done when Labour was in government?  [ Interruption. ]

Chris Bryant: You are telling me to deal with one Parliament at a time, Ms Primarolo, and I rather agree.
	I have to say that I probably agree with the hon. Gentleman. However, that would require treaty change, and I do not know whether we would then end up with a referendum, which would be very difficult for the Government.

Anne McGuire: I may have misheard my hon. Friend, but I do not think he included the Parliament of '74 to '79, which also had a change of Prime Minister when Harold Wilson handed over to James Callaghan. Even adding in that Parliament, only six out of 16 Parliaments since the second world war ran for five years.

Chris Bryant: Indeed. My right hon. Friend makes a very good point; she is right. I think that that Parliament ran for four years and seven months.
	The second reason I think that five years is too long and four years would be better is that five years is longer, in practice, than applies virtually everywhere else, certainly within the European Union. Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Spain all have, for their lower Houses, fixed or maximum Parliament lengths of four years.

Alec Shelbrooke: What about France?

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sitting there in his rotund way- [ Interruption ] I am sorry, orotund way-and providing me with the suggestion that I might refer to France. He is absolutely right, and I will indeed come to France. He might also have mentioned, orotundly, that Italy, Austria, Malta, Cyprus and Luxembourg have provisions for five years. It is worth pointing out that in Italy there have been 17 elections for its Camera dei Deputati since 1945, and only twice in that time has the Parliament run for the full five years.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Chris Bryant: Of course. The hon. Gentleman is very peripatetic this evening.

William Cash: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman might take on board the fact that the systems of all the other countries in Europe that he has rightly cited are based on written constitutions. Does he accept that the virtue of the British system is its flexibility? Moreover, there is the example of 10 May 1940-the day I was born, as it turned out-when Chamberlain was effectively dispatched because he had completely failed and Winston Churchill took over. That was on the very day that Hitler invaded the lowlands. In other words, we make our decisions based on whether we in this House, on behalf of the people, decide that the Government have had their day.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is, in effect, making an argument against the whole of the Bill, because he is basically saying that we should not have fixed-term Parliaments.  [ Interruption. ] I am sorry-he is chuntering so I cannot quite hear what he is saying. However, I disagree with him. My argument is that if we are going to have fixed-term Parliaments, they should not be of five years but of four years, partly because otherwise we will end up having the longest-running Parliaments in the European Union.
	In Italy, very few Parliaments have gone on for five years because the President has the power to suspend the Parliament early. In Austria, there have been even more general elections-20-although that country has had a fixed five-year term since the war. Malta has had 16 elections since the war, and only since 1998 has it stuck to the five-year period. Cyprus has had regular changes to its constitution for a whole series of different reasons, not least in relation to Turkey. Only Luxembourg has a fixed five-year term that it has stuck to since 1974. In all these cases-I thought that this is the point that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) was going to make-the elections are held on the basis of a system of proportional representation, where there is an expectation that Parliaments might fall rather more frequently because elections do not tend to bring in one party with an absolute majority of seats in the relevant House.

Andrew Percy: As interesting as the examples from Europe are, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the countries that share our monarch and have exactly the same problems with prerogative powers and so on provide a better example of where we should be heading?

Chris Bryant: I will come on to them, and indeed they add to my argument, but I just wish to finish with France, for the further satisfaction and delight of the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). As I am sure he is aware, there have been 18 general elections to the Assemblée Nationale since 1945, which in large measure is because the President has the power to suspend the Parliament early if he wants to, and has frequently done so since 1945. The only restriction is that he cannot do that if he has already done so in the past year. In effect, therefore, there is not a fixed five-year term but a maximum five-year term, and elections have been held in October, November, March and June. In fact, the number of full five-year terms has been low. Again, that makes my point that a fixed five-year term for the British Parliament will mean that we have the longest Parliaments and the least frequent general elections of any country in the European Union.
	As the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said, it is not just the situation in the European Union that should matter. Five years is longer than in any of the other Westminster democracies as well. As he and others have said, New Zealand and Australia have three-year terms. They are not actually fixed terms in either case, they are maximum three-year terms, and I know that plenty of people there would like to be able to change to a four-year term because they think that three years is too short a time. In practice, three years ends up being a fixed term, because who would want to have elections more frequently than that? He is also right about Canada, where there is a four-year term.
	However, there are some exceptions. I thought that the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell would leap up and ask, "What about India?" The Lok Sabha, whose Members are elected in a similar way to ours in the sense that there are single-member constituencies, is elected for a maximum of five years. However, leaving aside the suspension of elections during the state of emergency from 1975 to 1977, there have been Parliaments of one, two, three or four years on several occasions since 1952. In practice, because it is quite easy to hold early general elections in India, it does not feel as though there is a fixed term of five years. Again, we will be going longer than most.
	In South Africa, the National Assembly has supposedly been elected for five years ever since independence, but every term between 1966 and 1989 lasted four years or less-some might say "fewer", but it depends on how one looks at it.

Alec Shelbrooke: I say again to the hon. Gentleman that this Parliament will still have the power to have an election before the end of the fixed term.

Chris Bryant: Unless the hon. Gentleman is going to support us on amendments to clause 2-I look forward to his arguments, because we will have to ensure that he is consistent-he must accept that the Bill provides tough measures to ensure that the calling of an early general election will be pretty difficult, if not virtually impossible, given the parliamentary system.
	To continue with Parliaments in the Westminster-style democracies, Papua New Guinea has consistently had fixed-term elections every five years since 1972, but it has more than 20 political parties, and only one party in the Papua New Guinean Parliament has more than eight members out of the 109. Again, that is a very different situation.
	I therefore point out to Members that since the 1970s the only two places that have stuck to five year Parliaments, which are what the Bill is intended to give us on a permanent basis, are Papua New Guinea and Luxembourg. I just do not think that they provide an appropriate model. Even in the Dáil, which obviously has a five-year term and has done since 1923, the average term has been three years and three months. I argue that the Government are trying to extend the practical length of Parliaments, which is inappropriate.
	The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr referred to Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh elections. His amendment 11 refers to the elections in 2015. I do not know whether the Government want to have a lot of elections on the same day, or whether they want to try to separate elections out consistently. In the USA, as several hon. Members have said, there is a deliberate constitutional construction to ensure that a lot of elections happen at the same time on the same day, on a two-yearly cycle. That is not the model that we have tended to adopt in the UK, although we have ended up with local elections, and now the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections, happening on the first Thursday in May.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that different constituencies and different electoral systems will be used on the same day, and he was absolutely right. If the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill goes through the House of Lords unchanged, we will not have parliamentary constituencies here that match the Welsh Assembly constituencies. They already do not match in Scotland, and on top of that there are regional elections to provide the top-up seats in Wales and Scotland. We will end up with a dog's breakfast. It will be difficult for voters to understand precisely whom they are voting for, difficult to conduct the counts for the different elections and difficult for broadcasters to know how to ensure that they give equal balance to the various people standing in elections.

Jo Swinson: rose -

Chris Bryant: It is great to have another new entrant to the debate.

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman. Does he accept that the situation he describes is not solely a result of this Bill, and that it was bound to happen anyway in 2015, when it is likely the general election would have been? As he says, there are already different boundaries in Scotland. It is right that we find some way of enabling the devolved legislatures to move their elections if they wish, but the situation is not just the result of this Bill.

Chris Bryant: No, no, no, the hon. Lady is wrong. She has a much easier way to solve all this-she can vote with us tonight. She only has to do so twice, first to ensure that the 2015 election is brought forward to 2014 and then to ensure that elections are every four years, not every five. She has to do both, she cannot just do one, because otherwise we would still end up with elections happening at the same time every 20 years.

Stewart Hosie: I wonder whether we can get down to the brass tacks of this. In 2007, some 140,000 ballots in Scotland were void, nullified and not counted. People were disfranchised because there were two elections of different sorts on the same day. This matter is not ethereal, it is about practical politics and the enfranchisement of people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. When that point was made earlier in the debate some people said it was all about how the ballot papers were presented, and undoubtedly that was part of the problem. However, the point is that in Wales, an Assembly election feels like a general election. It will feel like a general election next May. Elections to the Scottish Parliament feel like a general election in Scotland, and I am sure the situation is somewhat similar in Northern Ireland. If they coincide with the UK elections every 20 years, it will be a bit of a muddle and voters will be confused. This is not about our convenience, it is about the convenience of voters and the clarity of the mandate that is provided. Without a clear mandate, we end up without good politics and with people distrusting the political system.
	I say in passing that another element of the Bill is that the Government intend to stick to a short election campaign, both in any early general election that might be held and in the specific 2015 election. That will not be the same campaign as for the local elections or for the Welsh or Scottish elections. That will provide another level of uncertainty, particularly for treasurers of local election campaigns. They may be the treasurer for their local constituency association or their local party, and they are already given a pretty tough job to do with stringent legal provisions. Often they are nervous about what that might mean for them and whether they will end up in prison. We should not make the situation even more complicated by firing the starting gun for expenses for the various elections on different days. In addition to that, by choosing May we will always hit the problem of Easter. In 2015, polling day will be on 7 May and, because it is a relatively early Easter, Dissolution will be on Monday 13 April. In 2020, unless we change the legislation, polling day will be on 7 May, which will mean that Dissolution will be on Maundy Thursday 9 April, as both 10 and 13 April will not be working days.
	Maundy Thursday used to be a day on which one did not have elections. It used to be provided as a bank holiday, but legislation in 1995 removed it from the list. None the less, it would be inappropriate to dissolve Parliament on Maundy Thursday in 2020. The bigger point is that we will constantly have the problem with the start date of the electoral campaign because Easter moves.

Louise Bagshawe: Although I respect the hon. Gentleman's ecclesiastical background, I cannot resist asking him why it would be a problem for the Dissolution of Parliament to take place on a Maundy Thursday. It seems quite a bizarre point to make. Will he please elucidate?

Chris Bryant: Both days provide a specific role for the monarch. The point that I am trying to make is that because Easter moves, the number of working days' measures that is allowed for in the Bill at the moment makes it more difficult to predetermine exactly how many days there will be. For the most part, it is inappropriate to have a general election across the passage of Easter; it makes it more difficult. I do not want to lay that down in legislation. I merely make the point.
	The main point, however, is that it has always been the ambition of freedom that there should be frequent elections. There is a significant difference between having a fixed term and a maximum term for a Parliament. The Meeting of Parliament Act 1694-it used to be known as the Triennial Act 1694-stated:
	"Whereas, by the ancient laws and statutes of this kingdom, frequent parliaments ought to be held; and whereas frequent and new parliaments tend very much to the happy union and good agreement of the king and people".
	It then went on to make provision for three-year parliaments, which is what, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby is advocating.
	I fear that the argument of the Government-in particular the argument of the Deputy Prime Minister-that plenty of time is needed to do unpopular things is rather closer to the Septennial Act 1715. That said:
	"And whereas it has been found by experience that the said clause"--
	namely the one that provided for three-year Parliaments-
	"hath proved very grievous and burthensome, by occasioning much greater and more continued expences in order to elections of members to serve in Parliament, and more violent and lasting heats and animosities among the subjects of this realm, than were ever known before the said clause was enacted; and the said provision, if it should continue, may probably at this juncture, when a restless and popish faction are designing and endeavouring to renew the rebellion within this kingdom, and an invasion from abroad, be destructive to the peace and security of the government."
	In other words, as in 1715, the Government want to be able to remain longer in power because they think that it is better for the country. On the whole, we should presume that shorter Parliaments are better. It is no wonder that the Chartists campaigned for annual elections. The petition that was presented to this House on 2 May 1842 by Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, the MP for Finsbury, argued for it and for the payment of MPs. The Parliament Act 1911, to which several hon. Members referred, came about in response to the battle over the powers of the House of Lords and the people's Budget in 1910. Prime Minister Herbert Asquith then said that the change would probably amount in practice to an actual working term of four years.
	In 1992, the Labour manifesto said:
	"This general election was called only after months of on-again, off-again dithering which damaged our economy and weakened our democracy. No government with a majority should be allowed to put the interests of party above country as the Conservatives have done. Although an early election will sometimes be necessary, we will introduce as a general rule a fixed parliamentary term."
	In 2002, Tony Wright, the former Member for Cannock Chase-he was previously the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee-brought in a ten-minute rule Bill, calling for fixed-term Parliaments. He pointedly said that the fixed term had to be four years rather than five years.
	In 2007, another ten-minute rule Bill was brought forward in the name of David Howarth, a very fine man who was then the Liberal Democrat Member for Cambridge. He argued very forcefully, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, that there should be a fixed-term Parliament. The Liberal Democrats have long argued for fixed-term Parliaments, but fixed at four years and not five. Their policy paper 83 "For the People By the People"- [ Interruption.] I will not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) has just said. The policy paper, which was introduced to the autumn conference in 2007, set out the commitment to a written constitution, which included fixed parliamentary terms of four years. It stated:
	"Liberal Democrats have long argued that parliaments should last for a fixed term of four years. In a reformed political system coalition government might be the norm and stability can only be encouraged by a system which does not allow for snap elections when political relationships suffer temporary disruption."
	The best advocate of such legislation was the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath). Indeed, he brought a Bill before Parliament. I have seen lots of photographs of him advocating a four-year fixed Parliament. As he is an honourable man who believes in consistency, I know that he will support us tonight in favour of a four-year rather than a five-year term.
	Welcome to the Chair, Miss Begg. It is a delight to see you for the first time in the Chair in the full Chamber of the House. Let me repeat, there is no mandate for this provision. This provision is not the one that was in the Liberal Democrats' manifesto. It is not the provision that was in the Conservative party's manifesto, because the Conservative party said that it would introduce legislation to provide that if a party in Government changed its leader, and therefore the Prime Minister, there would be a general election within six months. That provision has completely disappeared, so there is no mandate for the precise nature of this Bill.
	I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House and the Minister have persuaded themselves of their argument. They have scrunched up their eyes and desperately persuaded themselves that this Bill does not try to extend the length of Parliaments. They have screwed themselves to the sticking point, and they are determined to get it through. The honest truth, however, is that this is a wrong measure. It is anti-democratic. It will mean that general elections happen less frequently. This House should support the amendments that have been tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr and all the other amendments that call for four-year Parliaments rather than five-year Parliaments and the next general election in May 2014 and not 2015.

Eleanor Laing: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg.
	In the unavoidable absence of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), I should like to put before the House amendment 32, which has been tabled by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, of which the hon. Gentleman is chairman. I and other hon. Members here present are also members. Not all members of the Select Committee have put their names to this amendment, and I do not wish to press it to a Division. None the less, I want to put it before the House on behalf of the Select Committee because it was part of our process of pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. In the Select Committee's words, the House should consider whether
	"a Parliament following an early general election should last for only as long as the remainder of the term of the previous Parliament, and whether such a provision would make a super-majority for a dissolution unnecessary?"
	I am sorry to be speaking about this matter after the shadow Minister because he may have wished to say something about the Select Committee's deliberations.
	Three eminent academics gave evidence to the Select Committee. Professor Robert Blackburn of King's college, London, wrote that the amendment would help to
	"ensure a governing majority does not abuse its ability to push through an early election resolution for no good reason other than being a favourable time to itself to go to the polls".
	Professor Robert Hazell of the constitution unit at University College London, wrote that the proposal would provide
	"a strong disincentive to a government inclined to call an early election"
	as well as
	"a disincentive to opposition parties tempted to force a mid term dissolution".
	The proposal is also supported by Professor Hazell's colleague, Professor Dawn Oliver, for similar reasons.
	There are at least three further arguments in support of amendment 32. First, it would provide a genuine fixed term, making the cycle of ordinary general elections predictable long into the future, or at least until the law is changed. Secondly, it would be in keeping with the statutory arrangements for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Thirdly, it would prevent the cycle of parliamentary constituency boundary reviews -as proposed by the Government in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill-from decoupling from regular general elections. That decoupling would occur under the Government's proposals if an early general election were held. Will the Minister consider that in respect of the provisions of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill as well as in respect of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point. It will be difficult for people to know on what basis elections are held if we do not accept amendment 32 or an amendment to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill to ensure that boundary commissions report 18 months or so before the date of an election.

Eleanor Laing: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman and I disagree profusely on the boundary commission issues that are currently being debated in Parliament, but we agree that it is essential that regular boundary reviews coincide with parliamentary terms. I expect that the Minister will also agree with that.
	As I have often said when speaking to amendments that have arisen from the pre-legislative scrutiny undertaken by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, amendment 32 is genuinely meant to be helpful to Ministers, and to forewarn them. If there are early elections, boundary commission reviews will be out of step. Having said that, this is a purely practical matter. I am sure that the Minister, once he has given it about two or three minutes' thought, will have a perfectly good response. It is right that this Committee considers such points, because that is the purpose and meaning of pre-legislative scrutiny.
	The Government put their argument against the amendment in their response to the Select Committee's report. They say that
	"a Government could be returned following an early general election with a large majority, in which case it would make little sense to ask the voters to return to the polls in as little as a few months."
	That is a perfectly good point and I cannot argue with it. They also argue:
	"The people expect that when they go to the polls, they are being asked to elect a Government which will last for a full term with a full programme."
	If the Bill passes, the people will indeed expect that. Those points answer some of the points that the Select Committee made in its pre-legislative scrutiny, but not all.
	As I said, not all members of the Select Committee support amendment 32, and I do not wish to press it to a Division. I am speaking to it on behalf of the Select Committee simply so that this Committee has an opportunity to consider the balance of the arguments. I am sure that the Minister will give very good reasons why he does not wish to accept the amendment, but I hope he will reassure us that the Government have considered the points made-perfectly properly-by the Select Committee.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady referred to the evidence given by Professor Hazell, so I am sure that she would also want to point out that he said that fixed terms should be for four and not five years. Does she remember 16 May 2008? She intervened on David Howarth in the Chamber to attack the idea of a fixed-term Parliament. She said:
	"Are the Liberal Democrats in favour of this Bill because for nearly a century they have not had an incumbent Prime Minister, and have no prospect of having one for the next century?"-[ Official Report, 16 May 2008; Vol. 475, c. 1704.]

Eleanor Laing: I am glad the hon. Gentleman raises that and grateful to him. I very well remember 16 May 2008 -I have the  Hansard here in my hand-and I am delighted that when I spoke from the Dispatch Box from which he just spoke, I did not encourage my party to vote against provisions for a fixed-term Parliament Bill. I doubted the motives of the Liberal Democrats at that point.

Sadiq Khan: You should still doubt their motives!

Eleanor Laing: I am consistent on that point as in all other aspects of my political philosophy. In fact, the debate on 16 May 2008 was a full debate on this issue, and I urge hon. Members to consider it.
	I have spoken to amendment 32 on behalf of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. Having performed my duty in that respect, I am now free, and I should like to speak to amendment 11 on my own behalf, and not on behalf of that Committee or anyone else. There are two issues to consider when it comes to the length of Parliaments: first, the constitutional principle; and secondly, the prevailing political situation. Let us be honest: that is the crux of the matter.
	On the constitutional principle, there is nothing strange, new or innovative about a five-year parliamentary term. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) asked from where the Government have plucked the idea of five-year terms. The fact is that the law permits five-year Parliaments, as it has for the past 99 years. The idea has not been plucked from nowhere-it is quite normal.

Jonathan Reynolds: Does the hon. Lady not recognise that the normal practice has been four-year terms? In fact, the average length is slightly less than four years. If we are to extend that period, we should at the very least be given an argument in favour of it, but such an argument has not so far been forthcoming.

Eleanor Laing: No. With respect, the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The Bill is not about extending Parliament. Four year Parliaments are not normal. Let us be realistic and honest about that, in political terms. We have had four-year Parliaments because they have suited Prime Ministers who believed that they had a better chance of securing a majority in the country after four years than if they went on for another year. The current system gives enormous power to Prime Ministers, and quite rightly so. There must be some power of incumbency, which is what the power to such decisions is. There is no norm of four-year Parliaments, and averages are irrelevant-they are just arithmetic.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Lady is talking about what is normal. I venture to say that it has not been normal in the British system, since 1832, to have a five-year Parliament. There have been a few, but there have been very few. It has been more normal to have four-year Parliaments.

Eleanor Laing: I have just explained why. I would add that 1832 is not relevant, but 1911 is. We are looking at the last 100 years, during which time there have been several five-year Parliaments.

Gavin Williamson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is very familiar with these figures, but 10 of the past 17 Parliaments lasted longer than four years, and six of those 10 lasted longer than four and a half years. That probably supports her argument that many Parliaments run for much longer than four years.

Eleanor Laing: I thank my hon. Friend very much for those statistics. He is absolutely correct, and talking about averages is neither here nor there. We should be looking at the number of Parliaments that have run for five years, almost five years or very much less. We cannot count the war years, and it is irrelevant to count unusual times. There is no norm of four-year Parliaments. The Bill does not extend anything; it merely enshrines the current situation.

Jonathan Edwards: On UK norms, is it not true that where institutions are fixed, whether in Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland, or in local authorities and town, community and parish councils, the norm is four years? The norm in the UK is four years, and that is the whole point of the amendment.

Eleanor Laing: The norm for district, county and parish councils is four years, but they are not Parliament. We are talking about Parliament, the duties undertaken by which are different and have a different time span from those undertaken by local authorities.

Thomas Docherty: Does the hon. Lady accept, therefore, that the only other Parliament in the United Kingdom has a four-year term, and that is the Scottish Parliament, for which, I regret, she did not vote in 1997?

Eleanor Laing: No I did not, but I would argue with the hon. Gentleman that, if he seeks consistency, which would not be unreasonable, the Scottish Parliament should change to five years. There is no problem with that.
	The point made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) about comparisons with local authorities is interesting but irrelevant, because we are talking about Parliament, the work of which has a long time lag.

Chris Bryant: Why?

Eleanor Laing: Because it takes a long time to turn the economy round. We are looking now at the horrific mess that the last Government, in the last five-year Parliament, left behind.

Chris Bryant: indicated  dissent .

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman can wave it away, but he cannot change the fact that our country's economic situation is dire, and that is because of what his Government did in their last five-year Parliament. I wish it had not lasted five years, but that is another point-[Hon. Members: "Ah!] Yes, but when I say that, I say it purely out of party political prejudice, and other people in the Chamber ought to admit the same when they are looking for a general election to be sooner, rather than later. It is not constitutional principle, but party political prejudice.

Nicholas Dakin: Is it not important that we focus on the people we serve, rather than on structures, time periods and so on, and is it not important that we renew our mandate regularly? If the norm is for the renewal of a mandate after four years for local elections, parliamentary elections in Scotland and Assembly elections in Wales and Northern Ireland, does it not make sense to recognise that renewal on a four-year basis is reasonable, especially given that neither of the Government parties took this to the British people in the general election? We have to recognise the norm, by which I mean the average.

Eleanor Laing: I have answered the point about local authorities. We are not a local authority; we are the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Making that comparison completely negates the hon. Gentleman's argument. However, he said one thing that was correct: yes, we should be mindful of those whom we serve. We serve them better by producing stable Government, and that is what the Bill will help to do. The fact is that no Parliament can bind its successor.

Adrian Sanders: Does not much of local government elect not every four years, but by thirds every year, so the argument made by Opposition Members is completely erroneous?

Eleanor Laing: I am glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because he is absolutely correct. The argument is totally erroneous. If Opposition Members wish to turn this Parliament into the equivalent of a district council, I for one will oppose them all the way. It is an irrelevant argument. The Bill is a statement of intent and of good management by the Prime Minister, who could, as other Members have said, say nothing now, bring forward no legislation, but intend in his own mind to call the next general election in May 2015, and under the current system that would be entirely up to him.
	I have dealt now with the constitutional principle. There is no such principle preventing a fixed-term Parliament of five years, and there is no principle that says that a Parliament of the United Kingdom should be anything other than five years-no principle, no precedent. On the second part of my consideration-the reflection of the current political situation-I noticed the other day that I have an old fridge magnet, purchased some time ago in that illustrious place, the House of Commons souvenir shop. It has on it a pithy saying from that brilliant political thinker, Spike Milligan-

Austin Mitchell: Five years or bust.

Eleanor Laing: It does not say that. It says: "One day the Don't knows will get in, and then where will we be?" [Hon. Members: "They did."] Precisely my point! I used to laugh at that fridge magnet and think that Spike Milligan was funny, but now I am sorry to say his prophecy was correct. Where would we be, if the electorate decided, "Don't know"? We would be where we are now. We need a coalition, because that is what the electorate, in Spike Milligan fashion, decided. We have to have a coalition because it is necessary for stability, and that stability is necessary to resolve the economic situation and put this country back on its feet after 13 years of misrule by Labour Governments.
	On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), speaking from the Dispatch Box for the Opposition, was not cynical-the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said today that parts of the Bill are cynical-but practical when she said:
	"The long title of this Bill should be 'A Bill to ensure that the inherent contradictions in the coalition Government are suppressed for a full five years; to make sure that neither party can double cross the other; and for connected purposes.'"-[ Official Report, 13 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 697.]
	Well, she was absolutely right: that is not cynical; it is practical. We need to have stability. We therefore need to have a stable coalition, and if having fixed-term Parliaments is part of that, we need to have fixed-term Parliaments. The Government are right to state that such a Parliament should last for five years, because in order to bring about the stability that this country needs, it needs to have the same Government continuing with the same coherent, stable economic and social principles in the long term, rather than for short-term political expediency. That is why five years is so important.

Chris Bryant: I think I must have wandered over to the Government Benches and left my notes for my speech there, because the hon. Lady seems to be reading them out. I can see why it might be practical to say that the next general election should be on 7 May 2015. However, against her argument, I cannot see why it is a good constitutional principle-one that should be set in legislation-that Parliaments should sit for five-year terms.

Eleanor Laing: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman cannot see that, but I have said that I can see it. It is a perfectly proper constitutional principle that a Parliament should sit for five years. Now I am putting the practical side of the argument, which is that in the political and economic situation in which we find ourselves-as a result of the mismanagement of our country's economy and social policy for 13 years by a bad, Labour Government, who did the people of the United Kingdom no favours whatever-it will take more than just two or three years to put this country back on its feet. Therefore, we should have a five-year term. It is what the people of our country need; it is what we as parliamentarians have a duty, in the name of stability, to give the people.

Anne McGuire: Thank you for calling me, Miss Begg. It is a great pleasure to see you in your place today.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) on her dynamic speech. She has always been a participant in constitutional debates. We have often not seen eye to eye, and, frankly, I am not sure that we are going to change that this evening. However, she spoke with her usual vigour, vim and-in her way-logic. For those who do not know, she and I have always had an issue with some Members of this House who could never pronounce her name properly-that is, as we pronounce it in Scotland. I know that I am not allowed to mention names, but I am sure that she knows what I am talking about. [Hon. Members: "Go on!"] In Scotland, we would pronounce the hon. Lady's name "Lang". I will leave hon. Members to work out the difference, because, without usurping the Chair, Miss Begg, we would normally- [ Interruption. ] No, sorry, we would say "Layng", not "Lang". After 13 years down here, I have almost gone native.
	I would like first to comment on one or two other previous speeches in this debate. There have been some powerful contributions to this debate. On the principle of the four-year term, although I did not agree with the analysis on three years put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), he and the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) made telling statements about re-energising our democracy at regular intervals. Frankly, it is arrogant of us in this House to assume that we should not go out there and re-energise our democracy at reasonable times. I am not convinced that five years is the right period to re-energise our democracy. Indeed, the dynamic of the British political infrastructure is built around four-year terms. The hon. Member for Epping Forest assumed that somehow Parliament was in a different position from the other elements of our democratic infrastructure, but I do not think that we are, in that they are underpinned by the same principle that if someone is elected by the people, then every so often, after a reasonable interlude, they should have to regain that mandate.
	As an aside, the hon. Member for Epping Forest is a fantastic successor to Sir Patrick Cormack-I hope that she will take that as a compliment-in that she says the word "Parliament" with such gusto and conviction. Her articulation-I think that is the word-of the word "Parliament" brought back fond memories of Sir Patrick.
	There is a dynamic in the British parliamentary system. There is also a logic to the four-year term, which has been built up over many years, yet the one thing that has been missing from the Government's case in proposing five years is logic. There is absolutely no logic to their case, although the hon. Lady's honesty perhaps got us closer than anybody else on the Government Benches was prepared to admit. This is not about logic or principle; this is about sheer political expediency. The current Government tell us that their activities in managing the economy will deal with the deficit in four years, so why are they afraid to go back to the electorate in four years? Why do they need to extend this Parliament for an extra year? Some elements of the coalition Government are in a lifeboat, waiting for the general election of 2015-a political equivalent of the Carpathia-to come by and lift them out of the seas in which they find themselves. That is the only reason for proposing a five-year term.
	It is preposterous to introduce a five-year element into a well established cycle of elections every four years. It is almost like the Olympics: if we can divide the year by two, then it should be an election year. Every other democracy that we have highlighted today has gone down the road of four years-in the case of the American Senate, the division is by two. We have a well established political infrastructure in this country.

Graham Stringer: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for shorter periods between general elections, but when it comes to a coalition, is there not an even stronger democratic argument for shorter periods? By necessity, the policies of a coalition will have been opaque to the electorate at the last general election. Therefore, a coalition Government should go back to the people more often.

Anne McGuire: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend. We now have a different kind of Government. Had the numbers been slightly different, we might have been in a similar position-that is, in a coalition. However, I cannot imagine that one of our first Bills would have been to extend the life of that Parliament and put a statutory limit-not a flexible limit-on the length of our term, although some of my colleagues have asked why we did not think of the idea first, when we had a majority of 164 in 1997. Hindsight is a great thing.
	As for the length of Parliaments, I want to offer my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda an apology, because he was right when he said that there were three Parliaments that ran in excess of five years. There were three others-I have just added up the years; I did not have the benefit of the chart-that effectively ran for five years. However, I hope that he will accept that, taken together, it has been unusual to go beyond four years.
	There has been a strong element of honesty-certainly from this side of the Committee-about what happens in the fifth year of a Government. We have to be realistic about the dynamism and energy of a Government in their fifth year. I remember coming into the House in 1997 and hearing then Opposition Members-some of whom are now members of the Government-say that the fifth year of any Parliament is often the one in which the Government are tired and running out of steam. You might remember hearing similar comments, Miss Begg. I do not think that creating fixed Parliaments of five years will change that dynamic of politics. Four years is the time it takes a Government to put a programme in place and to deal with the major issues that it came to power to deal with.
	Another element, which I find distasteful, is that this Government are seeking to extend their own life. I would have more respect for this legislation if it extended the life of the next Parliament. At no time did either of the political parties that now form the Government say that they would extend the life of this Government by an extra year.

Louise Bagshawe: Opposition Members return again and again to the same inexplicable argument. Will the right hon. Lady explain how the Government are seeking to extend the life of this Parliament when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may call an election on the very last day of the five years should he choose to do so without introducing any legislation whatever?

Anne McGuire: There is a distinct difference between the flexibility in the constitution now, and a law that says that this Parliament cannot, without jumping over various hurdles and achieving various percentages, call a general election before the end of that statutory period. That is the fundamental divide in the Committee.
	I return to the practical point of whether we should have general elections at the same time as other elements of our democratic society have their elections. The integrity of other elements of our democratic infrastructure should be protected. Frankly, the Westminster attitude that everyone else should change is not compelling, and is insulting to the tens of thousands of people who are involved in all sorts of political activity at local government level, and indeed at Assembly and parliamentary level. This Parliament established the Assemblies and devolved Parliament. We should keep faith with them and recognise that they have the right to pursue their own democratic mandate without our overlaying our election by statute and no longer as a matter of flexibility or choice.
	Holding those elections on the same day will cause major difficulties, even if that occurs every so many years. We are discussing different systems for not just two of those elements, but for three or four. We could have the alternative vote system if in the referendum, whenever it is held, the people accept it for this Parliament. We have first past the post for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and over and above that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda said, a third and yet another system is the regional list vote. The issue is not that the people of the various countries of the United Kingdom may be unable to discern the different political arguments that might be made; complexity will be added to our democracy when we want to encourage more people to be involved in democracy. We are in danger of putting them off by saying, "This is how you must vote in this election, this is the way on that election, and this is the way on the second vote."
	On a practical point, we may pass legislation in the House, but it has to be implemented. Let us imagine the difficulty that returning officers will face in the first and subsequent elections when they conflict with those elements of our electoral system. We are asking returning officers and all the staff who make sure that our democracy works to do almost the impossible. Although there have been debates on why 140,000 ballot papers were spoiled at the last Scottish Parliament elections, it is fair to say that the response from returning officers and their staff was that holding different elections on the same day with complex voting systems did not help matters, albeit that there were issues with the ballot paper.
	What worries me particularly about the how the legislation has been introduced is that when challenged the Deputy Prime Minister's answer was that the date of the other elections should be changed. That is arrogant, and underpins the content of the Bill and the speed with which it is being steamrollered through the House and the other place. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills argued powerfully about constitutional change, and he will recognise that if such change has to happen, it should do so with consensus throughout the House. Constitutional change should happen because all political parties recognise the need for it. What we have here is a unilateral decision by a coalition Government who did not highlight five-year terms in their manifestos.

Adrian Sanders: We did.

Anne McGuire: I may be wrong, but I think that was four years, not five years.

Adrian Sanders: Four years, fixed term.

Anne McGuire: Trust the Liberals to get involved in semantics. Everyone else knew what I was talking about.
	I suggest to the Minister that there is general good will in the House for fixed-term Parliaments, fixed-term elections, or whatever phraseology we want to use to describe what we all know we are talking about. There is consensus on that principle, but the Government must decide whether they will listen to the voice not just of political opponents, but of people who want that constitutional change. It is not a long way to travel to recognise major constitutional and practical problems with the date that they have chosen, and with the five-year term in principle. A coalition is also about listening to people outside the coalition, and I hope that the Government will yet come forward with a change to the Bill so that the House can agree on fixed-term elections in a way that allows us all to move forward without making it an issue of acrimony between parties.

Thomas Docherty: I welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg. As I sat here this afternoon and this evening, I saw my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and hon. Members on the Government Benches, and I had a feeling of déjà vu. I felt that we had been here quite recently, and it occurred to me that that was so.
	We had a debate in Committee just three weeks ago- [ Interruption. ] As the hon. Member for Foyle said, it was to discuss a Bill with a different title, but one that also sought to change our parliamentary system. There are perhaps only two reasons why the Government did not amalgamate them in a single Bill. First, this is a back-of-a-fag-packet rushed job that they have pulled together, but they could not get their civil servants to work fast enough for the Deputy Prime Minister. I note that he is not here tonight, and I can only assume that after his 70-minute contribution to our eight hours of debate on the other Bill he is exhausted. I am sure that Opposition Members wish him all the best in his recovery from that exhaustion. The second reason could be that the Minister so enjoys spending time on Bills that he has been bouncing around all week in eager anticipation of listening to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda giving him an interesting lecture on constitutional history. Without further ado, I will indulge not that fetish, but that fantasy.
	I was lucky enough to go on the visit by the all-party British-American parliamentary group to the United States some two months ago, and spent a lot of time studying the US constitution, and especially its constitutional convention, which is particularly apt given the comments by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) about interesting parallels between our parliamentary system and that of our colonial cousins across the water. I have to confess to being something of an anorak in these matters. In fact, I have been described as the Leonard to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda's Sheldon when it comes to the constitutional process.
	I should like to recommend to the Committee an excellent book by Professor Robert Beeman called "Plain, Honest Men: the making of the American constitution", which I would be happy to lend to the Minister and to the Deputy Leader of the House if they would like to study it. They might be interested to know that when the Americans came to draw up their constitution and were considering the lengths of terms of office and the roles of the upper and lower Houses and of the Executive, they held a four-month constitutional convention in 1789. They brought together some of the great minds of the day, including Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and one James Wilson, who was a native of Fife and educated at St Andrew's university, and who emigrated to the colonies in the 1750s. They spent four months debating those matters, and only at the end of that time, after a proper detailed debate, did they deign to bring forward detailed proposals for their terms of office, fixed terms and so on.

Richard Shepherd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not forget one of the very important constituent parts of that whole debate-namely, the federalist papers. They laid out the arguments for the wider public, which were fiercely debated with proposition and counter-proposition. That was a formidable ingredient that involved an awful lot of people.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I apologise for not having touched on it. He is entirely right to say that the work of the likes of Madison and Hamilton was crucial, but that there was also a great debate. They did not try to rush their proposal through.

Stephen Pound: We are certainly being educated here tonight. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Philadelphia convention was conducted on the basis of a tabula rasa, and that those people were starting from a base point? What we see here before us today is a foul, expedient hotch-potch of crisis and chaos spatchcocked together to try to allow the coalition to limp on into the future. To compare it to the great towering genius of Hamilton, Jefferson and Madison is to do them a disservice and to give the present coalition Government rather too much credit.

Thomas Docherty: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. When I look at those on the Government Front Bench, however, I see some nuggets of hope and principle, and I am sure they will listen carefully to the points that we are making.
	The Minister might be interested to know that, when the Americans were considering term lengths for their parliamentarians and for the presidency, they originally considered a three-year term for the House of Representatives and a seven-year term for the presidency and the Senate. Before the Minister gets too excited about the idea of a seven-year term, however, I should tell him that they also considered making it for one term only. Indeed, they argued that the Executive branch should not sully itself by seeking re-election. I suspect that he would be less keen on that principle. Slowly, however, over that summer, they moved towards a settled will among the 13 colonies. In fact, I should say 12 colonies because, as hon. Members will know, Rhode Island did not attend any part of the convention. They settled on a system of two-year terms for the House of Representatives, six-year terms for the Senate and four-year terms for the presidency. However, the elections for the United States Senate have always been staggered-a point that I regret the Government have not taken on board-so that each voter in every state has the opportunity to cast their verdict on the Senate no more than four years apart. That point seems to have passed by some of those on the Government Benches.
	Of course, there are reasons closer to home why we might wish to move to a fixed term of four years. I shall not repeat the points that were made earlier, but I should like to take the Scottish perspective for a moment. It is interesting that the Gould report-which the Deputy Prime Minister admitted on Third Reading of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill he had not actually read; he had read a report of the report-made it absolutely clear that having multiple elections on the same day would inevitably lead to confusion. The Electoral Commission has also raised that matter, and the electoral administration officers for Scotland are deeply concerned about their ability to deal not only with the referendum and the Scottish Parliament elections being held on the same day in 2011 but with the general election and the Scottish elections in 2015.
	There is also the important issue of the television debates. I should explain to those colleagues who have not had the pleasure of representing a constituency in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland that there is a real challenge involved. The main debates for the Westminster election in 2015 will be among the three party leaders, assuming that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have not merged into a single party for electoral purposes. However, in the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections in that year, there will have to be TV debates within the nations and regions covering the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Democratic Unionist party and so on in Northern Ireland, the Scottish National party, Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberals in Scotland, and similar arrangements in Wales. That will become incredibly complicated and could be open to serious legal challenge if we hold the two elections on the same day. The SNP or Plaid could argue that, if the leader of the Labour party gets double the exposure, Labour's vote could go up. I suspect, however, that such exposure for the Deputy Prime Minister would only drive down even further the Liberal Democrat share of the vote in Scotland and, probably, in Wales.
	There are also some serious logistical problems that need to be considered. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) stole my line about having different polling stations for the Scottish parliamentary election and the Westminster election. I am sure that that such a situation could also be true for Wales and Northern Ireland.
	There is actually a Member at the heart of the Government who does not agree with holding elections on the same day. I accept that his Bill on the decoupling of the local government and Scottish Parliament elections was introduced when he was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, but it might be helpful if I quote the junior Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I understand that he has attended the debate today. He was referring to the local government and Scottish Parliament elections, but the principles apply across the board. He said:
	"I have always held the view that separate elections for local government and the Scottish Parliament would allow for real local accountability by increasing the focus on the real issues of local government which are currently overshadowed by the policies of the Scottish Parliament."
	There is no reason not to extend that logic to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. On page 7 of his consultation document, he went on to say:
	"Supporters of combined elections argue that by keeping local government together with higher profile elections a higher turnout can be maintained. This is, however, only hiding the problem of a disengaged local electorate, not solving it. The real solution lies in local politicians that respond to local issues, delivering specific solutions to the specific problems in their community."
	I am sure that the Minister will absolutely agree with his colleague.
	I am conscious of the time, and of the fact that other Members wish to speak. I look forward to the Minister reflecting on the comments of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and on the wisdom of our colonial cousins. I also look forward to him supporting our amendments.

Sheila Gilmore: It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this debate, Miss Begg. I want to focus on the practical issues, as we have heard quite a lot of constitutional theorising, and, indeed, a great deal of fascinating history. When I first saw these proposals, I assumed, perhaps rather naively, that the Government had simply made a big mistake, and that they had not realised that, as a result of going for five-year fixed-term Parliaments with immediate effect-that is, in relation to the length of this Parliament-the date of the general election would coincide with the Scottish parliamentary elections, the Welsh Assembly elections and the Northern Ireland Assembly elections. I thought that once they realised that that was a problem they would rethink their proposition, if only in purely practical terms and even if there were a theoretical argument for five years being better than four-and I have certainly not heard one today-but they did not do so.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) said that he hoped that when the Minister summed up the debate-on Third Reading, of course, the debate may be summed up by the Deputy Prime Minister himself-he would take some of those issues on board, but I fear that, if the previous constitutional Bill is anything to go by, that will not happen. The Deputy Prime Minister could have written his summing-up speech for the Third Reading of that Bill before the debate had even started. Indeed, I believe that he had, given that so little reference was made to the hours spent in Committee and the different arguments that had been put at that stage. It seemed that none of those arguments had been listened to.
	I appreciate that many Government Members have no experience of the practical issues that we have raised. There is, after all, only one Conservative Member of Parliament who represents a Scottish seat. There are Scots who represent other seats, but there is only one Conservative MP who does so, and as far as I am aware he has not been present much during our debates or contributed much to them. Some junior members of the coalition-the junior partners-represent Scottish seats, but they too have been fairly conspicuous by their absence for much of the debate. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) has now arrived, and the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) was briefly present earlier.

Eleanor Laing: I simply must intervene to defend the honour of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is indeed the only Conservative Member of Parliament in Scotland. He cannot take part in these debates because he is a Minister in a different Department, although he was here earlier, when the Committee was dealing with the important parts of the Bill that relate to Scotland. I cannot allow it to be on the record that he has not paid attention or that he has not taken part in these debates, given that he is not allowed to do so.

Sheila Gilmore: I accept the hon. Lady's point that the Minister cannot take part in the debate, but I have not observed a great deal of discussion in the wider press, here or in Scotland, to which he has contributed.
	The point that I was making, however, is that many Government Members have no practical experience of the position that obtained in 2007. I think that Government Members are inclined to make light of it and to imagine that we are stirring up a storm in a teacup over something that did not really matter, but it was important. It was a bad day for democracy when so many things went wrong with that combined election. Yes, it did have something to do with the design of the forms; I am not going to say that it did not, for the design did not help. However, the real issue in that context, which was addressed after 2007, was the decoupling of the local government and Scottish Government elections, with an arrangement to ensure that that would not happen again. It seems odd to voters in Scotland, and certainly to political activists there, that we are not just returning to the position in which we found ourselves in 2007, but, I would argue, putting ourselves in a considerably worse position.
	Although this will not simply be a matter of practicalities, I should like to draw attention to some of the practicalities of which Government Members may not be aware. The boundaries relating to the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster constituencies are now very different. They have moved apart because the number of Scottish constituencies represented here was reduced in 2005. The Scottish Parliament boundaries have been changed very recently. Their size has not been reduced and the numbers have not changed, but there has been a substantial redrawing which, in most cases, has moved them even further from the Westminster boundaries. There are some very strange boundaries, making it difficult for people to understand who represents them and what constituency they are in.
	People who live in the southernmost part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for Westminster purposes will be in Edinburgh Eastern for the purposes of the Scottish parliamentary elections next year. Given that they live in the far south of Edinburgh, they find it quite difficult to fathom why they have effectively been transported to a different part of the city. That will cause not just a potential for electoral confusion, but serious practical problems relating to the organisation of the elections.
	Even more important is the blurring and confusing of the real political differences that have emerged since devolution. I am sure that the same applies to Wales, although I probably do not know enough about its politics or history. No doubt my colleagues will rush to enlighten me. Our politics in Scotland, however, have developed very differently. Not many of the political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament take the lines adopted by the coalition Government here.
	For instance, the coalition Government have decided that they want to stop funding the building of affordable housing through grants-I assure you that this point is relevant to the debate, Miss Begg-and instead to fund it by raising rents, which means that tenants will pay for the building of their new homes. I am absolutely positive that no party represented in the Scottish Parliament, even the Conservative party, will espouse such a position in Scotland through the Parliament. In the past-although the situation may change-all the parties in the Scottish Parliament have signed up to free personal care for the elderly. At that time a different view was taken at Westminster, and a different view was taken by my party and by others. However, although some might find it surprising, the Conservatives in Scotland have signed up to that policy in the past.

Anne McGuire: In a radio programme that I heard on Friday, a leading member of the Liberal Democrat party in the Scottish Parliament said that in no circumstances would the Liberal Democrats introduce tuition fees. Has my hon. Friend any idea how we could conduct a debate about tuition fees-given the position of one of the partners in the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrat party-while also trying to conduct a debate about funds for students in Scotland, with all that happening at the same time as the two elections?

Sheila Gilmore: I entirely agree. That is another illustration of where the difficulty lies. It is not that people are stupid. It is not that the voters cannot understand that there are two elections ongoing. It is that the issues will not be properly debated, and there will be confusion about what the various parties stand for. For example, Scottish Liberal Democrats may, as has been suggested, wish to campaign strongly about the way they think universities should be funded. As that is clearly different from the position taken by their leadership here at Westminster, they are going to find it much harder to get their point of view across.

Martin Horwood: I am surprised that the hon. Lady thinks this will cause confusion since Labour seemed to manage such a situation: they supported the abolition of tuition fees in Scotland as part of the coalition there while simultaneously opposing that for the rest of the United Kingdom from the Government Front Bench here in the last Parliament.

Sheila Gilmore: I was not suggesting that it is either confusing in general terms or wrong that parties in different parts of the United Kingdom should take different views. That has also happened in Wales, and it has happened on health issues and education issues. It is right that we should develop in that way; I think it is extremely healthy. It is a sign of the strength and success of devolution since 1999 that there can be such differences of opinion even within political parties that are very close and see themselves as part of the same party.

Thomas Docherty: For the benefit of those Lib Dems who are only arriving now, so very late to the debate, may I ask my hon. Friend whether she agrees with the following point made tonight by the leader of Plaid Cymru and others-that confusion will be caused by having two elections on the same day, especially as they will be preceded by TV debates with on one night the party leader for the UK saying that his party will pursue one policy and the following night the party leader in Wales or Scotland saying something else?

Sheila Gilmore: I absolutely agree. The problem is not to do with people taking different positions; it is to do with what will happen in the month or few weeks before an election when the issues are being debated on the hustings and being reported in the newspapers. I have an awful vision of us running two sets of hustings and trying to get people to come out to slightly chilly church halls to listen to completely different debates on different nights-although it is perfectly possible to get people to come out to such events when elections take place at different times. Why make this happen when we do not have to?

Chris Bryant: Is the point not that elections to the Assemblies of Wales and Northern Ireland and to the Parliament in Scotland feel like general elections? Indeed, effectively the law treats them like general elections in that a free post is allowed through the Royal Mail and the broadcasters have to report events in certain ways. A conflict will arise if every 20 years we hold these elections on the same day.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank my hon. Friend for that information, and I do not think that Government Members appreciate that aspect. What we are talking about is not a local government election that we might be facing next year or in 2015. The elections we are talking about are not less important than general elections for people in Scotland, because people in Scotland consider the Scottish Government to be the Government of the country for the purposes for which they have powers. They are a Government: they have a First Minister, a Cabinet and a national aspect in the sense that they are the Government in a Parliament that covers the part of the UK that is Scotland. I am not trying to ignore Wales or Northern Ireland at all in this, and the same principles apply to them.
	If we respect what we have achieved through devolution, it is important that we do not allow that to be swamped. We have those different debates and policies, and people have their chance to vote differently, which they do-I am not for a minute going to suggest that people will not vote differently on the same day, because I know that that can happen. The genuine ability to separate out these areas of politics and to allow each legislature its real place and presence within our constitution is simply being ignored by these measures. As I have said, it seems to me that there is no reason for that.

Anne McGuire: My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument on the practical issues. Has she also had time to consider how the broadcasting authorities will maintain some element of balance, as they will have to schedule programmes for two different elections with two different political dynamics-with different parties being in different positions in different parts of the country? Are we not placing an impossible burden on those whom we are asking to implement the legislation currently going through the House?

Sheila Gilmore: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Yet again, that is another aspect of a situation that we are creating. Apparently-the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) let the cat out of the bag-this is being done not for any good and strong constitutional reason or because we can argue about the history of the past 200 years, but because it suits this coalition Government to have this Parliament last for five years. It suits them to have this provision wrapped up with the other parts of the Bill, which will be debated later, to try to ensure that the coalition holds together. This is being wrapped up as a constitutional Bill and it is being presented as something that will last into the future but, given our constitution, it is possible for a future Parliament to change that, so we are not entrenching things.

Thomas Docherty: My hon. Friend mentions the future. Has she, like me, worked out that if we have a second five-year term, we will run slap bang into the local government elections in Scotland, which we have put back by a year? We would then have an even worse situation than the one in 2007, with a general election and the local government elections leading to hundreds of thousands of spoiled ballot papers.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank my hon. Friend for that information, because it adds to the important case that we are presenting. The people who find this highly amusing clearly have not had the experience that we had. It is incumbent on a Government who said that they would want to look at the evidence and make decisions on the basis of hard facts to listen to the evidence being given by people who have been through this process and who understand the complexities of devolution in a situation where we still have a UK Government. We have had experience of this, as have the elected bodies, which have given their view very clearly to the UK Government but have been ignored. They were not consulted before this, but they gave their view and told of their experience, so it is not asking too much of any Government to say, "Perhaps we have not got this right."
	Perhaps the simplest thing for the Government to do is not to try to see whether they could slip the election by a month, as has been suggested by some people. That would represent the worst of all possible worlds for the voters, let alone for the political parties. The simplest thing would be to say, "We have got this wrong, but we believe in fixed-term Parliaments." The Labour party proposed fixed-term Parliaments in its manifesto and the Liberals believe in them too. I am not sure whether the Conservatives believe in them, but they introduced this legislation so presumably they now do. We all seem to agree that there should be fixed-term Parliaments. On that basis, why are we having this debate? Because the coalition Government are so determined to stick to their first thought, which was to have five years.
	The Government may be doing that only for advantage and to feel that they have the longest possible time in which to be the Government. I have to say to the hon. Member for Epping Forest that she and others on the Government Benches may feel that they have an entitlement to sit for five years, having been elected, but a lot of people in the country have a very different view. The majority party in the coalition did not get a majority for its policies. The junior partner in the coalition went to the people on a different set of policies, so the people who voted for the Liberals did not vote for the programme of this coalition Government. The Government's approach seems particularly unfortunate for democracy in this country, given that the Government do not have a mandate to rule in the majoritarian fashion that they are doing.

Lorely Burt: Is the hon. Lady therefore saying that her party does not accept that a coalition of two parties is sufficient to run the country? Does she believe only in first-past-the-post majority rule, and must we keep having elections until we get some sort of majority Government by default?

Sheila Gilmore: Coming from Scotland and having seen both coalitions and minority Governments in operation, I am very open to various ways of running a Government. I would not for a minute want to suggest that it always has to be an absolute majority, that first past the post is what we need or that we need majorities.

Nicholas Dakin: My hon. Friend is making an eloquent and forceful argument, drawing on the arguments that we have heard before. She is saying very well that there is consensus in this House about fixed-term Parliaments, but that constitutional change should be undertaken very carefully to ensure that it creates a settlement that is sustainable and stable. Separating national elections from UK elections is an important part of that, because it makes for a crisper, more certain mandate from the people whom we have a duty to serve. When the people are going to the polls for the Assembly or the parliamentary elections, they should be clear that those are the prime elections to focus on. When there is a UK election, they can focus on that. For that reason, four-yearly terms would be much better at this time.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, with which I wholly agree.
	Ordinary electors thought that a hung Parliament would be a good idea, because they genuinely believed that there would be openness and that people would listen to different points of view. That has not happened. The strong views of the elected Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have not been listened to. The bulk of the evidence given to the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, of which I am a member, was clearly in favour of four-year fixed-term Parliaments. Why should that weight of evidence be ignored? Was that what people expected from a more consensual and open approach? I think that a lot of people thought that coalition meant that we would get the best bits from everyone and that everyone would sit around and have discussions-

Lorely Burt: We did.

Sheila Gilmore: The hon. Lady seems to think that they did get the best bits from everyone, but that makes it clear to me that she did not believe in the manifesto on which she stood because so many parts of it seem to have been ditched in favour of the policies of the other party.
	A small and simple change-a very small concession-that would not in any way interfere with the principle of fixed-term Parliaments would make it far easier for the Bill to be passed relatively quickly. It would allow national elections in all parts of the United Kingdom to go forward in the best possible way and our devolved Parliaments and Assemblies to present their policies to the electorate in the way they want to.
	Our media are very England-centric-and, indeed, London-centric-although Government Members might not be so acutely aware of that as Opposition Members are, and I fear that the domination of the UK-wide poll and the important issues it involves, which must be dealt with, will be such that the important elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly will, sadly, be overwhelmed. I fear that the issues, ideas and important policies that concern those elections will not be fully debated before the population, that the arguments will not be properly heard and that people will not get the chance to have their say about how those legislatures have functioned in the preceding years, but it is important that they should get that say.
	The bulk of the evidence that the Select Committee heard was that what is being asked is not a lot. It seems to be simply stubbornness-perhaps it is about political advantage above all else-to stick to the same position in the face of all the arguments that we have heard. I hope that it is not too late, even now, for the Government to rethink their position and to allow the Bill to pass through the House with the agreement of all parties because we have reached genuine consensus.

Stephen Pound: It is a delight and pleasure to serve under you, Miss Begg. This evening has been an extraordinarily educative process. We have looked very far back into the past and I should like to imagine some time in the future. I imagine a group of fresh-faced young students in some constitutional history class at some as-yet-unbuilt school-perhaps the Tony Blair faith academy, the Ann Widdecombe college of dance and drama or, hopefully, the Eleanor of Epping college of education for the daughters of gentlefolk. In one of those as-yet-unbuilt but glorious buildings, some pernickety pedagogue will turn to the class and say, "Let us go back to the November of 2010 and see what the House of Commons was debating." The pedagogue will say, "They were discussing the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill," and someone will ask, "What was the context?" The Government amendments before us refer specifically to compromise, but the key point is the context in which the Government are bringing the Bill before the House tonight. It is based on expediency, not ethics. Just as no good fruit can grow from a diseased tree, the coalition is like the upas tree, poisoning the soil all around it. They are trying to poison our very constitution with this appalling Bill.

Anne Begg: Much as I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, I remind him that we are in Committee and that he must address his comments to the amendments before us, rather than the Bill in general.

Stephen Pound: I stand abashed, ashamed and corrected, but, as ever, eager to serve, Miss Begg. I was about to turn specifically to the amendment of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who speaks for Plaid Cymru. The amendment is supported by a broad coalition of the better brains in the House, including the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), whose constituency is possibly the most unpronounceable in Scotland. The amendment offers an alternative to the centralist, Stalinist, steel-like structure of a five-year Parliament. It offers something that we are prepared to support for the good of the nation although not all of us believe in it entirely in our hearts-a four-year fixed-term Parliament.
	To see the amendments in the specific context, we have to think of what happened in May this year, when two groups of people were trying to buy a house. They were trying to bid for that great mansion of state that is this United Kingdom, and they found that even as the previous occupants were leaving with dignity from the front door, neither of them had enough money to buy the house, so they both moved in at the same time. Maybe they daubed the soffit with a bit of yellow and put a touch of blue on the eaves, but they had no choice.
	You will no doubt be asking yourself, Miss Begg, how this relates to the amendments before us. That is precisely what I was coming to. I do not wish to comment on the sleeping habits of Liberal Democrats. That is far too exotic an area for me, but the camp bed in the living room and, in the master bedroom, surrounded by damask silken curtains, the great four-poster bed that the Conservatives occupy represent a compromise, which is the basis of the coalition.
	The Bill on the Floor of the House today at the Committee stage refers to the creation of a structure that will bind together two disparate groups of people-the people who virtually bought the house and the lodgers on the camp bed in the front room. You may think that that is not relevant, and I would have to say, Miss Begg, that I agree with you, but the point that I am trying to make is that the Bill must be seen in the context from which it comes.

Chris Bryant: Is not the point, in relation to five-year or four-year fixed-term Parliaments, the one that was made by the professor of constitutional law at King's college London, Robert Blackburn who, in his evidence to the Select Committee, said of the genesis of the Bill that
	"it is, I think, fairly clear that it is driven by the political self-interest of the coalition Government. They want to fix the lifetime of this Government-not the Parliament, but the Government"?

Stephen Pound: rose-

Anne Begg: Order. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) will have seen from my body language that he is not pleasing me. He is continuing with a Second Reading speech. He must address the amendments-not just mention them, but address the content of the amendments.

Stephen Pound: Miss Begg, I am, as ever, attendant to your body language and I am interpreting every flicker of that elegantly sculptured eyebrow, even as we speak.
	The Septennial Act 1715, as amended by the Parliament Act 1911, is the Act that we will lose, should the Bill reach the statute book. The key point is that if, in the interest of expediency and of pleasing the coalition, we bring in a five-year fixed-term Parliament in contra-indication and contrast to the existing legislation, we place this country in peril indeed. The Bill at present on the Floor of the House at Committee stage, which I read with great care a few moments ago, is hedged around with all sorts of caveats so that an election may not be held on a day of national mourning or thanksgiving or on Christmas day. The Bill is limiting.
	I support the amendment because that limitation restricts the right and privilege of the House to decide, under certain circumstances. There are emergencies or there may be some dramatic situation where an election has to take place. The removal of the royal prerogative, on this day of all days, is not something that I wish to comment on.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman mentions days when the election can take place. Does he agree that the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies of the United Kingdom should be given proper respect, and therefore that new clause 4 should be supported? That would allow them to see whether particular days did not suit them. Whether it be Christmas, Burns night, Hallowe'en or whatever, they should be given the choice if there were a clash between the elections to this place and to the great Parliament of Scotland, and the attendant media were unable to cope.

Stephen Pound: Today is Eid al-Adha, and that is an important factor that should be taken into consideration. At the risk of offending my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and being too London-centric, there are different times in different parts of this United Kingdom when an election may not be appropriate. Judging by the results, it seems we may have had an election on Hallowe'en on a few occasions, but there are certain days on which demonstrably we should not be doing so. However, by limiting ourselves in this way, by applying this template of centralism to the whole structure, we put ourselves in danger, which is why new clause 4, an elegantly crafted piece of work, which stands by itself in all its wonder and majesty, is something that we should happily support.
	Clause 2(4), to which the amendments relate, shows the dreadful problems that we have. It states:
	"Before issuing a certificate, the Speaker of the House of Commons must consult the Deputy Speakers (so far as practicable).
	What thought has gone into this, when it says "so far as practicable"? The amendment addresses that specific point.

Anne Begg: The amendments that we are debating relate to clause 1, not clause 2, so I ask the hon. Gentleman to return to the amendments on clause 1.

Stephen Pound: You are absolutely correct, as in all things, Miss Begg.

Nicholas Dakin: I am following my hon. Friend's argument very carefully, as all hon. Members will be. Is it not true that all the evidence is that in their fifth year Parliaments run out of steam and get tired, and the country is impatient for democratic renewal, and is not that why we should have four-year Parliaments or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) argued, three-year Parliaments?

Stephen Pound: One reason why I support clause 1, page 1, line 13, is not because I am massively enamoured of the joys of four-year Parliaments as opposed to five-year Parliaments, nor because I think that there is a natural rhythm in the political cycle that means that every few years we get exhausted and have to have an election, but because it is the least-worst option. It is unfortunately a fact that sometimes we have to present that option. I happily present the hon. Gentleman from the constituency that one day I will be able to pronounce.

Angus MacNeil: There has been confusion in the House that somehow five years is bad and four years is good. It is almost Orwellian. The fact that five years in the UK has turned out to be bad is because people tend to leave it to five years. The reason I support four years is not because I think five years is particularly bad, but four years is long enough to spend without going back to the people to ask for another mandate. It is a democracy, after all, and ultimately the people, through the ballot box, rule. Politicians and elected people are stretching the credulity of the electorate to go beyond four years. The example of Scotland again is tremendous for Westminster.

Stephen Pound: Amendment 11 addresses these points. The reality is that if we had a fixed-term Parliament-I appreciate I am arguing for a fourth year rather than a fifth year-what dreadful temptations would come the way of susceptible politicians? Legislation would be front-loaded, knowing that there was never the possibility of an early election by which they might be made accountable to the people. I appreciate that clause 1 may be influenced by future legislation on recalls. We could find ourselves with so many recall petitions that we in fact have a new Parliament in the middle. There are certain aspects in the Bill later-not specifically relevant to clause 1, before you mention it, Miss Begg-which refer to the power to dissolve. But the most important, most salient point here is that if we locked the system into a four-year or five-year cycle, we would lose that glorious uncertainty of the democratic oversight. We would lose that concern, may I say, even, on occasion, that fear of the electorate, which is the honest emotion that parliamentarians should always feel.

Angus MacNeil: The reason we want a fixed-term Parliament, particularly those in minority parties, who are never in the party of government in this situation-in Scotland we made sure that it is far more democratic-is not the fear of the electorate, it is the fear of the Government, using the particular wins that they have created for their own advantage in a narrow period of time. There is an advantage in a fixed-term Parliament. Some people prefer five, some people prefer four. I am in the four camp-

Patrick McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus MacNeil: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman when I make my own speech.

Stephen Pound: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because mention was made earlier-perhaps too much mention for many of us-of the American political system, where, by having fixed terms, there is permanent campaigning and fundraising, a permanence that takes away what I referred to as the glorious uncertainty borne of the possibility and potential of hearing the people's voice. The voices of the funding committees and various other supportive bodies are heard, but that sword of Damocles, which should be hanging over the head of every politician in a modern democracy, is somehow removed, because it is winched slowly down by clockwork, instead of dangling from a piece of monofilament.
	Now, I think that the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Mr McLoughlin) wanted to intervene.

Patrick McLoughlin: indicated dissent.

Stephen Pound: Are you sure?
	I hope that I have expressed tonight a sincere and heartfelt view that, just as everything must be seen whence it sprang, this Bill, which we are considering in Committee, has sprung from a coalition that is fundamentally unsound and based not on political realities but expediency. The group of proposed changes before us, which would set the date, elections and length of a Parliament, would go some way towards mitigating this-I dare not say "evil", because that would be too strong a word-sordid, mean, pettifogging, limp, expediency of a Bill.

Mark Durkan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way.

Jonathan Edwards: Is he your friend?

Mark Durkan: I confess.
	My hon. Friend makes the point about the number of amendments in this group, and they aim to ensure not just that the term is fixed at four years, but that the cycle of fixed terms does not clash with the cycle of fixed terms for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland elections. This Chamber has already imposed a UK referendum on those elections next year, and now, under this Bill, the Government want to impose a UK general election on the devolved elections in 2015 as well.

Stephen Pound: My hon. Friend, not for the first time and almost certainly not for the last, makes a very powerful and pertinent point. If the Bill proceeds tonight without the benefit of the amendments that we are discussing, it will be not just the political cycle that is locked into a four or five-year time frame, but the economic cycle and so many other aspects of life. They will then be locked into a fixed term. That fixed term will apply not just to Parliament, but to the country, and that is dangerous. It is dangerous if we always assume that, no matter what a Government do, they can get away with it, because there will be no election for three, four or, heaven forbid, five years.
	That is the danger, and that is when the markets start to build in an assumption of front-loading and when other countries assume that, although there may or may not be a change of Government in the future, there will not be one at that moment in time. That is when offence is given to all parts of this nation with different traditions, different histories and different days of great and signal importance. There are so many fears, so many concerns, so many worries, and the case made for the group of amendments is so powerful and so much a matter of righteousness that it would be otiose of me to continue to press it any longer.
	I sit down, Miss Begg, with apologies if I may on occasion have strayed slightly from the purity of the amendments before us, but I hope profoundly that this House will tonight agree that the people matter more than political fixes, and that somehow this is about the constitution, not about the coalition.

Mark Harper: It is a great pleasure to speak with you, Miss Begg, in the Chair.
	A number of Members said that they thought that the Government would be running out of steam, but it is a very clear sign that the Opposition are running out of steam when they have to wheel members of the Whips Office in to argue a case-a case, actually, against their own Front Benchers. Their Front Benchers are in favour of four-year terms, so the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) would have done a better job if he had troubled to read the Bill, the amendments and clause 1.
	In addressing the amendments that deal with clause 1 on the proposed length of the fixed term and the date of the next election, it might be helpful to explain at the outset why the Government have taken the approach that we have set out in the Bill. The Government announced in the coalition agreement our intention to introduce a Bill for fixed-term Parliaments, and I have listened to a good number of arguments for and against the proposed five-year term, not least today. The Government strongly believe that a five-year fixed term is right, not only for this Parliament but for subsequent Parliaments, as it will provide the country with the strong and stable Government that it needs.

Angus MacNeil: rose-

Mark Harper: Let me make a little more progress, and then I will give way.
	We have heard arguments in favour of a four-year or three-year fixed term. However, the statistical evidence shows that if we exclude the three very short Parliaments since the war, the average length of Parliaments has approached four and a half years. The first point that I would make in respect of the arguments for four-year or three-year Parliaments is that those advocating them gave insufficient regard to the current arrangements, which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) outlined in observing that this Parliament is able to sit for five years. Indeed, if the Prime Minister wanted to achieve the aim of this Parliament sitting for five years, he would merely not ask the Queen to dissolve it for five years. The Bill has nothing to do with extending the term of this Parliament.

Angus MacNeil: If the hon. Gentleman is such a strong advocate of five years for a Parliament, would he extend that strength of feeling to the devolved legislatures to enable them to have five-year terms as well? If we do the multiplication-five times four equals 20-it is clear that we will have the problem of the two dates clashing every 20 years. Would he be happy for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to move to five-year terms as opposed to four?

Mark Harper: The problem to which the hon. Gentleman is alluding is the once-in-every-20-years coincidence of dates. If he will allow me to make some progress, I will address those issues later in my remarks.

Chris Bryant: The Minister is being extremely disingenuous. He said that the Prime Minister can keep going until 2015 if he wants to, but that is not the case-he does not have a majority. In fact, the words of Robert Blackburn to the Select Committee are right:
	"The Liberal Democrats want to be sure that the Conservative leadership would not cut and run in the same way that a minority Administration with an informal pact with the Liberal Democrats in Parliament might-as in 1974".
	The other side of the coin is that the Conservatives want some guarantee that the Liberal Democrats will not change their minds. The Prime Minister needs this Bill to keep the coalition in power until 2015.
	The Temporary Chairman (Miss Anne Begg): Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that "disingenuous" is not necessarily a parliamentary word?

Chris Bryant: I am sorry, Miss Begg-I did not mean to suggest that the Minister was misleading the House. I think that his argument is misleading, but I am sure that he is not trying to mislead the House.

Mark Harper: I am grateful, Miss Begg.
	The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. He says that the Government can continue in office only if they retain the confidence of the House. I will not dwell on this at length, Miss Begg, because that would be to move on to arguments that we will make when we come to clause 2. The Bill contains provisions whereby we will have a fixed-term Parliament, but subject to two conditions: first, this House will, for the first time, have the power to cause an early general election; and secondly, we are keeping the provision that a Government have to retain the confidence of the House. The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.
	Some Members, in trying to argue that four years is the norm and five years is only for Governments who are clinging on to power, have pointed to examples of Parliaments that have lasted closer to four years than five. That completely overlooks the fact that elections that are called early, before the five-year term is up, are often those where the Prime Minister of the day thought that doing so might give their party a political advantage. It was not that they somehow thought that four years was the more constitutionally appropriate length of time for them to hold office.
	Advocates of three or four-year terms are using as their strongest argument the very enemy that the Bill is designed to combat, which is political expediency at the expense of national interest. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who is no longer in her place, asked why Labour did not think of the idea in 1997. I can tell her that it was because the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wanted to preserve his ability to cut and run and seek an election at whatever opportunity he thought best.

Andy Slaughter: rose-

Mark Harper: I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has not been here for most of the debate, so he can just stay in his seat.
	The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) effectively makes the case for Prime Ministers being able to cut and run. The current Prime Minister is the first one who has put aside that ability in the move to a fixed-term Parliament.

Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend sets aside the words of Asquith, who predates any shenanigans on the matter, but will he consider the fact that the longest-serving Prime Minister of the last century was Lady Thatcher? She had four-yearly elections like a metronome, so there is experience of the concept of Prime Ministers believing that four years is an appropriate time.

Mark Harper: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentions Baroness Thatcher, who of course was a great Prime Minister and served this country well. I remember the elections that she called in 1983 and 1987, which she won with resounding majorities and continued to serve the country. I am sure that if she were here, she would agree that when she asked Her Majesty the Queen to dissolve Parliament, she thought about the likely consequences of those elections and the likelihood that the Conservative party would be returned to office. She was a politician-a very successful one-and I do not think I do her a disservice if I point that out.

Andy Slaughter: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: No, I am terribly sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has not been here for the debate, so I am not going to give way to him.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) drew attention to one of our arguments about the need for long-term thinking. Many commentators, politicians and members of the public would argue that Governments can be too short-term in their planning and decision making. We want to encourage future Parliaments and Governments to take a long-term view rather than look for short-term advantages. As a number of my hon. Friends have argued, a five-year fixed term would provide the country with a strong and stable Government.
	I turn to the amendments in this group. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who is not in his place, seeks to set the length of Parliaments at three rather than five years. I think perhaps he did himself a disservice when he quoted remarks of his own constituents suggesting that a three-year term was needed so that he might last it, because of his age. I am only repeating what he said; I do not agree with it myself. However, I simply do not agree with his argument. The flaw in it came when he said that the Government parties wanted not a fixed term but a five-year term. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is perfectly capable, while the Government retain the confidence of the House, of having a five-year term of office. That has always been the constitutional position, and the Bill is not necessary to ensure it.

Tristram Hunt: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: I will, because the hon. Gentleman has been here for the debate.

Tristram Hunt: In some of the speeches that we have heard from the Deputy Prime Minister-I understand that he is giving one to the Hansard Society tonight rather than being in the Chamber to discuss the Bill, which is rather scandalous-there has been much talk about the Chartists and how this great reform is an echo of the 1840s. The Chartists were in favour of yearly elections, so why does the Deputy Prime Minister deny the will of the people by keeping Parliaments at five years?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the point that the Chartists made, but I do not happen to think that annual elections would be a good idea, and from my experience I am not sure that the people of this country would be over-enamoured of us if we said that we would trouble them with a general election every year. I believe that they will be content with our proposal. We do not want to end up with a situation in which the people of the United Kingdom are subject to a permanent election campaign. That is the evidence that the Constitution Committee in the other place has received. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) drew attention to the matter when he looked at the US congressional experience in the lower House where, effectively, as soon as Congressmen get elected, they instantly turn their thoughts to their re-election and spend most of their period of office having to raise money for expensive election campaigns.

Angus MacNeil: Let me pick up on that point about the American Congress and the House of Representatives. There are a number of American politicians-those in safe seats and those who are unopposed-who are not on a constant campaign. The Minister made a fair point about Lady Thatcher, especially given the partisan point that he could have made. She looked at the party advantage of her electoral cycle and that is why she probably went for four years. If the Minister does not support the five-year terms for the devolved legislatures, will he support new clause 4 that would allow the devolved legislatures to avoid the clash with the Westminster Parliament?

Mark Harper: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will soon get to that point and to new clause 4. I just want to take this in order.
	My final point for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby-he did not address this in his remarks, so I can only assume that it is an oversight-is that his amendment would mean that the next election would take place on a Tuesday. He gave us no indication of why he would want to do that, so I assume that his amendment is technically as well as logically flawed.
	Let me turn now to amendments 11, 12 and 13, the first of which was ably moved by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), and supported by those on the Opposition Front Bench. The amendments primarily make the argument for four-year terms, which is probably a good moment to pick up on the point about the coincidence with the devolved elections. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) was a little too soon in her criticisms of what Ministers will do, because she had not actually heard what I was going to say. She did exactly the same when we debated the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, and she was not correct in what she said. The Committee, of which she is a member, was behind an amendment that was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. Although we did not accept the amendment, we took it away and brought back a Government amendment to do exactly what the hon. Lady wanted, which was to reduce the ability of Ministers to interfere with a boundary commission report. It was not true to say that we did not listen to the House; we tabled an amendment that was inspired by the Committee of which she is a member. The Government do listen.
	When the Deputy Prime Minister made the statement on 5 July, he recognised that the coincidence of the devolved elections in 2015 with the UK general election was qualitatively different from the coincidence of the referendum and the elections next year. He has discussed the matter with the devolved Administrations and the Presiding Officers. He said that he would look at the matter, and he has kept that promise. I can tell the House that we will consult the parties in the devolved Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly to give them the power to defer the date of their elections by up to six months-in other words, to move the election into the future to avoid coinciding with elections to this House.
	I shall write to the First Ministers, the Presiding Officers and all the parties represented in the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly tomorrow to set out that plan. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales will be available to discuss those matters with parties represented in the Parliament and the Assembly.

Angus MacNeil: I am grateful for what I feel is the partial acceptance of new clause 4. How drawn is the Minister to the time of six months?

Mark Harper: That is something that we will be able to discuss when we consult Members in the other places. This power will only be exercisable in the years in which elections coincide, because it is to deal with that specific issue; it is not a general power. As for the ability of the Parliament and the Assembly to bring their elections forward, we feel that two-thirds of MSPs or AMs would be needed to support such a move. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is not a power that should not be given to the Administrations; this is a power that should be given to the Parliament and the Assembly.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mark Harper: I will give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) again, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Rhondda. If the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) will give me a moment, I will get to Northern Ireland and then I will take his intervention if he still wishes to make one.

Angus MacNeil: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once more. I do not want to seem pedantic, but for the sake of clarity, does he mean that two thirds of the relevant devolved legislatures can move elections both back and forward, or only back?

Mark Harper: The position at the moment is that two thirds can bring about an early election, and there is no power to extend the term, so to answer the hon. Gentleman's question, that means two thirds for both.

Chris Bryant: I apologise if this is a similar point to the one made by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). The legislatures already have the power to bring forward elections, but there is to be a power to extend. In effect, therefore, the Government are extending this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly for the convenience of the coalition. In essence, the Minister is saying that the motto of the Government is "Fewer Elections".

Mark Harper: No. The hon. Gentleman must not keep giving the Committee misleading arguments. The Bill does not extend the term of this Parliament-this Parliament can run for five years. Members of the devolved Parliament and Assemblies have asked the Government to think about how they can make a decision on whether to move the date-a sensible provision-of elections.

Angus MacNeil: rose -

Chris Bryant: rose -

Mark Harper: Let me finish setting out this point, because I might be about to deal with any questions that the hon. Gentlemen have.
	The Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly currently have the power to vote with a two-thirds majority for early Dissolution. In Scotland and Wales, the relevant Acts provide that if the early Dissolution is more than six months before the scheduled election, the scheduled election must still take place. Elections to the devolved legislatures must be held on the first Thursday in May. We want to give them the power to extend, because if they have only the power to hold elections earlier, elections would effectively have to be held in the depths of winter. The Government have listened on that point, which is why we want to consult the legislatures on the ability to extend the date, which will give them much more flexibility.
	It is worth making two other points. First, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections are materially different from local government elections in England. The Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are legislatures, and they already have a limited power to vary the date of their elections. In England in recent decades, general elections have frequently been combined with local elections. Combining local and mayoral elections with a UK general election is normal practice in England. It is easily managed and should continue unchanged.

Chris Bryant: The Minister is obviously making a sensible proposal in that regard, but I presume that such a change requires primary legislation, and that he intends to advance that in the Bill. I hope that he does not expect to make amendments in the House of Lords. Will he give an undertaking this evening that any such proposal will be made on Report in this House, and not at any later stage?

Mark Harper: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Labour party recognises that my proposal is sensible. We will consult with the parties in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly and introduce those changes at a later stage-I hope to do so sooner rather than later.

Chris Bryant: In this Bill?

Mark Harper: In this Bill, and I hope sooner rather than later.

Chris Bryant: In this House?

Mark Harper: I hope that it will happen sooner rather than later.
	The position in Northern Ireland is slightly different. One difference in the Northern Ireland settlement is that if the date of the election is brought forward by whatever period, the original scheduled election does not have to be held. Also, the responsibility for Assembly elections, including the date, remains a matter for the Northern Ireland Secretary. He also holds the power to shift the date by two months either way, whereas the date for Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections can be shifted by only one month. I have discussed that in great detail with Northern Ireland Ministers.
	Given the difference of the Northern Ireland settlement, and that next year there is a triple combination of Assembly elections, local elections and the referendum, Northern Ireland Ministers want to learn form that experience to see whether the existing power is sufficient or whether they wish to modify it. They will consult parties in Northern Ireland, both now and after next May, to see whether a further change needs to be made. If so, we will legislate to bring it into force.

Mark Durkan: I thank the Minister for recognising that the position in Northern Ireland is different. In putting my name to new clause 4, I was conscious that it was in clear tension with sections 31 and 32 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to which he alluded. Will he give an explicit assurance, however, that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office will involve all the parties in Northern Ireland in discussions? The 1998 Act was derived from the Good Friday agreement, was based on negotiations and agreements with all parties, and should be amended only by using the proper review mechanisms in full and true spirit.

Mark Harper: As in Scotland and Wales, we want to hold these discussions with all the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly, because this is a matter not for whoever happens to be running the Administration, but for the Assembly and all the parties represented in it.

Mark Durkan: Will the Minister indicate whether Ministers might at least be open to hearing a clear statement from all the parties, and perhaps the Assembly at large, that our preference would be for parliamentary elections on a four-year cycle, so that they do not clash with the Assembly? That would be the easiest way to avoid all sorts of problems. The formula that the Minister is using to allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to move its date might be an unachievable test: it might be impossible in the mixed-party circumstances of Northern Ireland ever to achieve a two-thirds majority, so we could be left with a political crisis and uncertainty. It would be a lot better to fix the cycles.

Mark Harper: There are two issues there. First, we recognise that the existing legal position and structure of politics in Northern Ireland are different, which is why we have adopted this different approach. There will therefore be extensive consultation with Northern Ireland Ministers and all the parties in Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) hit on a second point though. Changing the cycles and adopting four-year terms for both this Parliament and the devolved legislatures would not solve the problem, because there can be early elections-if, for example, there is a vote of no confidence. If we had four-year cycles for everything and one early election, we could end up with the cycles coinciding not once every 20 years, as under our proposals, but at every general and devolved election, which would make the problem worse not better. Under our proposals, the coincidence will happen only once every 20 years, not more frequently.

Jonathan Edwards: In the light of the Minister's concessions this evening, which we welcome, will he hold back Report to allow us to table further amendments?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman, who has been following the Bill's progress very closely, will know that we have allocated the second day in Committee for next Wednesday, but we have not announced a day on Report, so there is not a date to hold back. We have not been rushing through the Bill's proceedings at great pace.
	There was great discussion about the Gould report.

Angus MacNeil: I have three points for clarification. Is the Minister guaranteeing that there will be no clash of election days between, say, Scotland and Westminster? Will he guarantee that the six months he has spoken about will be put into legislation? Finally, who will have the power to shift the dates? We feel that that should be for the devolved legislatures. Also, the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) about the difficulties of getting a two-thirds majority was apposite. But it is all in the mix.

Mark Harper: I thought that I made it clear that it would be a two-thirds decision for-in the hon. Gentleman's case-the Scottish Parliament. It could not be a simple majority, because effectively that would give the power to the First Minister of Scotland or someone leading a majority Administration simply to choose a date that suited them-and that would be wrong. It would therefore be for the Parliament to make a choice about the election date.

Angus MacNeil: The choice?

Mark Harper: The Scottish Parliament would have the choice to consider the date. It could be moved by up to six months-it does not have to be six months-but it would be for the Parliament to make the decision. I gave a commitment that we would make that change in the Bill at a later stage of its progress.
	Let me turn briefly to amendment 32, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) spoke on behalf of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform and which was effectively about whether we should reset the clock when there is an early election. The Committee's train of thought, which she set out, was that if a party knew that it would get only the remainder of the term, it would be less inclined to pass a Dissolution motion or a no-confidence motion. Her Committee suggested that if that was the case, we would not need the super-majority proposal for an early Dissolution. There is a technical problem with amendment 32 as drafted, because it would allow an early election to be held at any time, right up to the next scheduled election, but would still force the scheduled election to take place, so we could have an election in March and then another in May, which would not be very sensible.

Tristram Hunt: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: Let me just finish this point. The Government could not accept amendment 32 as drafted even if we thought that keeping the clock ticking was the right thing to do. However, we thought about the issue carefully, which we also debated a little on Second Reading. The Government did not think that resetting the clock made sense for this reason. If there were an early election because the Government had lost their majority and gone to the country, and a Government were then returned with a significant majority, it would not be right for that Government, perhaps with a clear mandate, to be unable to put their programme to the country and carry it through. When people go to the polls, they expect that they are electing a Government who will last for a full term, with the ability to carry through a full programme. The Constitution Committee in the other place considered the evidence from other countries, including the Swedish model, and was told that the prospect of leaving the clock ticking actually protected the Government-the Executive-rather than the Parliament.

Tristram Hunt: Will the Minister give way?

Mark Harper: Let me make some progress.
	Finally, new clauses 4 and 5 would provide that elections to this House and the devolved legislatures could not occur on the same day. The problem with that proposal is that if it were agreed, it would provide that where a devolved legislature's general election had been moved, the following poll would take place on the first Thursday in May four years later. For example, if one of the devolved legislatures delayed its 2015 elections by one year, elections to that legislature and the House of Commons would coincide again in 2020. New clauses 4 and 5 would mean that those elections would have to be moved again in 2020, so they are actually a back-door method of substituting a five-year term for the devolved legislatures.
	I do not know whether that was the intention of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, who spoke so powerfully against a five-year term and in favour of a four-year term, but the effect of his new clauses would be to deliver a five-year term through the back door. For that reason I do not think that it would be very sensible to accept them. Also, new clauses 4 and 5 do not make provision for a super-majority, which appears to suggest that a majority Government in a devolved legislature could just play around with the election date to suit themselves, which is the opposite of what we are trying to achieve in this Bill. The Government therefore cannot accept new clauses 4 and 5, and I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press them to a Division.
	In conclusion, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, particularly those who were here for the whole debate and those who have tabled or supported amendments to clause 1. The Government are convinced that our Bill as drafted provides the right approach. I would urge hon. Members not to press their amendments to a Division and to support clause 1.

Chris Bryant: rose-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am going to allow Mr Chris Bryant in, but I know that he is going to make a very brief contribution.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to you, Mr Hoyle. I want to speak only because the Minister made some announcements in his speech that are obviously significant.  [ Interruption. ] The hon. Gentleman says, in a rather self-righteous tone, that he made them to Parliament, and we are delighted that he has done so-I presume that that is a criticism of his colleagues, not of anybody else in the Chamber. However, he has made some important announcements. He excoriated my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) for referring to the Government position before we had heard what it was, but as the Government chose not to make their position known until the very end of the debate, it is hardly her fault. As he knew that he was going to make his announcement this evening, he could perfectly well have written to all parties concerned to make it clear that he wanted to consult on the issue. I suggest that that would have shown slightly more respect to the Committee and to the various political parties involved.
	The Minister is proposing a change, but I note that so far he has not been prepared to say whether, if he intends to table further amendments, he will do so in this House. I wholly respect the powers and intelligence of the House of Lords to make sensible amendments, and I hope that it will do so to several pieces of legislation. However, I believe that amendments to legislation that affects elections should be debated and made in the elected House, not in the unelected Chamber. That is why I hope that at some point the Minister will make good his suggestions, that he will guarantee to debate those amendments in this House first, and that we will not have Report stage until such time as those amendments have been made in this House.

Jonathan Edwards: Diolch, Mr Hoyle. We have had an interesting and informative debate. I shall quickly run through some of the contributions. As ever, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd) made some passionate and honest points. He is always respected throughout the House. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) argued coherently and in detail. I cannot support his amendments, but I am glad that he will support ours this evening. The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made excellent points about the need to ensure that UK general elections are held separately, and I am glad that the Minister accepted those points. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made pertinent points about the Bill essentially entrenching the coalition rather than being concerned with democracy. I can only apologise to him for getting to the Table Office before him.
	With her usual eloquence, the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) highlighted the views of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and I thank her for her comments. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) spoke passionately about the political motives behind the Bill. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) gave an insightful historical lesson on the US constitution and relevant comparisons. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) reminded us of the 147,000 spoiled ballots in Scotland in 2007 due to the coupling of the local government elections and the Scottish Parliament elections on the same day.
	The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), as ever, made a compelling and entertaining speech, and I only wish that I had his oratorical talents.

Stephen Pound: My wife is Welsh.

Jonathan Edwards: That is important. It must be the Maesteg blood.
	The Minister made the Government's case, which was also made on Second Reading. I welcome his comments on consulting the devolved Administrations about changing their dates by six months. That is a significant step forward. If he were able to promise that he would legislate following the consultation on the National Assembly elections-in the case of Wales it would not be the Secretary of State who would determine that matter but the Assembly, as the sovereign body-I would press only amendment 12 to the vote tonight on the point of principle that the Committee should decide whether we should have a four-year or a five-year cycle. Diolch.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 242, Noes 315.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Amendment proposed: 12, page 1, line 7, leave out 'fifth' and insert 'fourth'.- (Jonathan Edwards.)
	 Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 246, Noes 313.

Question accordingly negatived.
	To report progress and ask leave to sit again.- (Jeremy Wright.)
	 The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
	 Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND

Ordered,
	That Sir John Butterfill, Nick Harvey, Dr Howard Stoate and Lord Touhig be discharged as Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund and Mr Brian H. Donohoe, Richard Harrington, David Mowat and John Thurso be appointed as Managing Trustees in pursuance of Section 1 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1987.- (Mr Heath.)

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Ordered,
	That Nick Harvey, Eric Martlew, Dr Nick Palmer and Dr Howard Stoate be discharged as Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund and Mr Brian H. Donohoe, Richard Harrington, David Mowat and John Thurso be appointed as Managing Trustees in pursuance of Section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939. - (Mr. Heath.)

Business without debate
	 — 
	Publication of information about complaints against members

Motion made,
	(1) That this House approves the Sixth Report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Session 2010-11, HC 577; and
	(2) That accordingly-
	a. The Commissioner may publish papers relating to complaints rectified or not upheld since the beginning of financial year 2008-09 and information about complaints received and matters under investigation since the beginning of financial year 2010-11.
	b. Standing Order No. 150 be amended, by inserting the following new paragraph after paragraph 10.
	"(10A) The Commissioner shall have leave to publish from time to time-
	(a) information and papers relating to-
	(i) matters resolved in accordance with paragraph (3) of this order; and
	(ii) complaints not upheld;
	and
	(b) information about complaints received and matters under investigation."- (Mr Barron.)

Hon. Members: Object.

POWER OF THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS TO INITIATE INVESTIGATIONS

Motion made,
	(1) That this House approves the Seventh Report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Session 2010-11, HC 578; and
	(2) That accordingly Standing Order No. 150 be amended, by leaving out paragraph (2)(e) and inserting in its place:
	"(e) to investigate, if he thinks fit, specific matters which have come to his attention relating to the conduct of Members and to report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to an appropriate sub-committee thereof, unless the provisions of paragraph (3) apply.
	(2A) In determining whether to investigate a specific matter relating to the conduct of a Member the Commissioner shall have regard to whether in his view there is sufficient evidence that the Code of Conduct or the rules relating to registration or declaration of interests may have been breached to justify taking the matter further."- (Mr Barron.)

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	 — 
	Closure of Ryedale Ward, Malton Hospital (North Yorkshire)

Anne McIntosh: The petition, which is from Dr Michael Lynch and in the name of 1,750 other petitioners, states:
	The Petition of Dr Michael Lynch, Derwent Practice, Norton Road, Malton,
	Declares that the Petitioner has a strong objection to the way in which North Yorkshire and York Primary Care Trust have implemented the closure of Ryedale ward at Malton Hospital, without public consultation.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to reinstate what is a highly valued and much needed facility at Malton Hospital for the population of Ryedale.
	And the Petitioner remains, etc.
	[P000868]

SUMMERTIME (SCOTLAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Jeremy Wright.)

Tom Harris: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for providing me with the opportunity to raise an issue which, although not considered earth-shattering in its political significance, tends to provoke extremely lively debate on both sides. The question is whether it would be better for the UK as a whole to move away from Greenwich mean time and to adopt what is confusingly entitled single/double summertime. This would mean that instead of living in GMT, as we currently are and have been since the end of last month, we would have GMT+1 hour during the winter and GMT+2 hours in the summer.
	We have this debate every year in this country, and the debate is particularly keenly followed in Scotland where, among certain commentators and politicians, there is always the temptation to indulge in the "poor us" victim mentality. This was effectively illustrated last week when John Scott, the Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament, asked the Scottish National party Minister, Fiona Hyslop, about the campaign to move to single/double summertime, and said:
	"Does she agree that Scottish children walking to school in darkness is not an acceptable price to pay for an extra hour of sunlight in Sussex?"-[ Scottish Parliament Official Report, 11 November 2010; c. 30349.]
	There are times when I feel like holding my head in my hands and weeping for my nation, when such nonsense passes for intelligent discourse. First of all, there is the small point that it is not possible to create, reduce or ration the amount of daylight available to any part of our globe. That is a matter for God Almighty and the immutable laws of the physical universe.
	Secondly, there is a dangerous laziness in summoning forth the bogeyman of the Auld Enemy. It plays fast and loose with the Union-it should be noted that Mr Scott's party was once proud to describe itself as the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party, though admittedly that was many years ago now-in the hope of currying favour with a particularly aggrieved audience; and there is always an aggrieved audience for such messages, which is why it is so dangerous to indulge them by raising the spectre of a change which, it is alleged, would have a beneficial effect on England while disadvantaging Scotland.
	I believe that claim to be nonsense. I also believe that there is much more support in Scotland for the change than has previously been the case. There have been various claims in support of a change to single/double summertime, some of which are harder to justify than others. The change would boost Scotland's tourism industry, we are told. It would help us to reduce our greenhouse emissions, we would be a fitter and healthier nation, our streets would be safer to walk on, trade between Britain and Europe would increase, the lamb would lie down with the lion and Trident would be beaten into ploughshares. Actually, I made those last two up, but I hope that the point is made. The advantages claimed for the change are many, and they are valid, but I do not blame some of the public for being unconvinced by some of them.

Thomas Docherty: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the fact that he has given up his blog means that hon. Members and the wider public will not have an opportunity to see his views being promoted on the internet, and will he perhaps reconsider giving up his blog so that he can take forward this important issue?

Tom Harris: I am almost grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and intruding into personal grief. Now that I am no longer a blogger, I may consider going into politics.

Tobias Ellwood: On a more serious note, the hon. Gentleman brings up an important issue that will be debated in a private Member's Bill very shortly. May I commend what he is saying to the House? I did some studies on this in Scotland and found that the farmers who were once against this, on passionate and logical grounds, are now either neutral or in favour of it. They appreciate the extra hour in the evening, because many of them have diversified into the tourism market where bed and breakfast and so forth provide value. The other aspect is road deaths. A net decrease in road deaths would be a significant improvement were the clocks to be changed. I welcome the debate that has been brought to the House tonight.

Tom Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those valid comments and trying to pre-empt the points that I hope to make in the next few minutes.
	It is up to the Lighter Later campaign and its many supporters here in the Commons to make the case for all the benefits that will accrue from pushing the clocks forward an hour, and they can do that during the debate on the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is in the Chamber. I will return to that issue shortly.
	As a father of young children, I approach this subject from a particular direction. The other alleged benefits that I mentioned earlier notwithstanding, it is the effect on Scotland's road safety record, particularly as it affects children, that most concerns me. We already know that road accidents are more likely to occur in the evening peak hour than in the morning. One will often hear the protest that drivers are not fully alert first thing in the morning when they drive to work, and are more alert as they return. I do not believe this to be the case, and the evidence is indeed to the contrary.
	The 1998 study by Transport Research estimated that a move away from GMT would lead to an overall reduction in road deaths and serious injuries of 0.7% in Scotland alone. Based on the figures for 2009, that would mean 20 fewer deaths and serious injuries on Scotland's roads, and 30 fewer casualties across all categories of severity.
	John Scott MSP said that Scottish children should not have to go to school in darkness. Mr. Scott represents Ayr, and I grew up in that same county, and I know that by December children there will be doing precisely that anyway. Dawn can arrive after classes have begun.

Cathy Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way because he has been very generous with his time. I note the points that he makes in relation to John Scott MSP, whom I know well. He is a farmer in Ayrshire, so I was rather surprised that he did not agree with some of his farming colleagues. I am old enough to remember the last experiment in Scotland when I was a pupil. Will my hon. Friend say something to reassure those parents who have heard tales of children going to school in the dark with the high-visibility armbands securely attached to the duffle coats and torches to get them to the end of their streets?

Tom Harris: That is a valid point. It will have to be met head on by the supporters of the campaign, because there is no doubt that in the 1968 trial, although road deaths throughout the vast majority of Scotland reduced significantly, there was a small increase in the number of road deaths in the far north of Scotland. Of course that has to be taken seriously, and I will say as much later on, but let us remember that when it comes to generating publicity on a particular campaign, it is far easier for the media to publicise deaths and injuries on the road than to publicise deaths and injuries that were avoided.
	We, as parents and-all of us, I think-as former children, know that when children head out to school in the morning on, say, a 10-minute journey, they allow almost exactly that amount of time for the journey. The return journey, however, is a different matter. It may sound counter-intuitive to suggest that children will be in a bigger hurry to reach school in the morning than to get back home again in the afternoon, but it makes perfect sense. Children adopt a more relaxed approach as they head home, perhaps taking diversions to friends' homes, popping into a shop or chatting with friends at the school gate.
	We see exactly the same phenomenon in our working lives. I saw it as a Transport Minister and when I worked in transport planning before being elected to the House. The evening rush hour is being extended every year and becoming longer and longer, as flexible hours mean more people leaving the office later, more people perhaps heading to the pub or to the shops on the way home, and evening buses and trains carrying the same total number of commuters on their return journeys as they did in the morning rush hour, but over a significantly longer period.
	However, too much time in this debate-too much attention-is focused on the journey to and from school. In any one year, children in Scotland spend as much time travelling between home and their friends' homes, and walking to and from various places of recreation, as they do travelling to and from school. Indeed, during the very darkest mornings in December and early January, children are on holiday from school and do not have to make those journeys at those early times, but they still make journeys later in the day, when the light is fading and they are far more at risk from passing cars.

Ben Bradshaw: Will my hon. Friend consider the remarks of the former Prime Minister, our right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who, at a regional Cabinet meeting in my constituency earlier this year, told a representative of the tourism industry that he saw real benefits of £3.5 billion in the move that my hon. Friend advocates and thought that there were merits in the idea of a three-year trial? I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that those comments are helpful to his campaign in Scotland.

Tom Harris: My right hon. Friend will know that I set great store by the comments of our right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) will forgive me, however, I must say that it is one of those claims that the public will have some difficulty accepting. Politicians throw such figures about all the time-£3.5 billion here, £10 billion there-but they do not have a great deal of meaning. Until we have a proper, scientific analysis of all the evidence, it will be quite fair for people to remain sceptical, but I shall come back to that issue, because the private Member's Bill deals with it.
	Scotland's road traffic record is poorer than the records for England and Wales. Scots are 27% more likely to suffer serious injury as a result of a road accident than our compatriots south of the border. That is partly a simple consequence of lower car ownership-again, a counter-intuitive argument, as one might expect fewer cars to mean fewer road accidents. However, 20% more journeys are made on foot in Scotland than in England, meaning that Scottish pedestrians are more numerous, pro rata, and therefore more at risk.
	I spoke rather blithely earlier of the other benefits that might-might-accrue to Scotland if the changes take place, and I wish to place on the record my sincere belief that those benefits would be real, if unquantifiable in advance. Of course, it would benefit Scottish industry if our trading hours were more in line with Europe's. Incidentally, those Scots and some English who say that Scotland should stick with GMT even if England chooses to move to single/double summertime should remember that Scotland's biggest trading partner is also our closest neighbour within the Union, and such a move would indeed be damaging to Scottish commerce.
	There are arguments in favour of the premise that our tourism industry, our energy consumption, our community safety and our participation in healthy activities would all benefit from a move to single/double summertime.

Angus MacNeil: If the hon. Gentleman is a strong believer in putting the clocks forward an hour, surely he realises that those benefits would be magnified if we put the clocks forward two hours, three hours, four hours, five hours or whatever, but then we might see the nub of the problem and exactly what was being foisted on some people. Does he agree that in a spirit of conciliation, therefore, we need a shorter, symmetrical period either side of midwinter? Rather than changing the clocks seven weeks before midwinter and 14 weeks afterwards, as we do at the moment, why do we not have a five or six-week period either side of midwinter? We would then shorten wintertime by half and probably reach a consensus that would be welcomed throughout the UK.

Tom Harris: I am not sure what the Gaelic is for "coming at you out of left field", but that intervention rather fits the description. On the hon. Gentleman's first proposal about moving summertime more and more hours forward, if he wishes to bring a Bill to that effect to this House, I will be happy to express my opinion.
	Inevitably, and rightly, there will be detractors- [ Interruption ]-as we can hear. Fair enough-there should be a public debate, but one based on facts, not on the exhumation of the English as evil bogeymen aiming to steal the sun from the Scottish sky.

Angus MacNeil: To return to the substantive point and away from the hon. Gentleman's hyperbole, does he support the shorter, more symmetrical period, or not?

Tom Harris: I will not belabour this particular point. I am speaking in favour of a move to single/double summertime. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands the meaning of that.

Tobias Ellwood: There is a serious point here. We have 53 days on one side of the winter solstice and about 100 days on the other side. It is not symmetrical, and therefore this proposal would make sense. I ask SNP Members to allow the Bill to go through to Committee stage so that such detail can be debated. It needs to be given more time so that the country can understand the detail instead of the Bill being kicked into touch by talking it out on a Friday, which happens so often. I hope that the SNP will listen, wake up to what the nation is calling for, and support this proposal so that we can have a debate and see it through to fruition.

Tom Harris: The problem with such debates, in most cases, is that various Members raise specific and detailed technical objections which prevent the progress of the Bill and which, nine times out of 10, are intended to do so. The Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Castle Point is before the House, and I hope that the House will make a decision in due course.
	Contrary to some rather excitable critics-yes, I am looking at you, John Scott MSP-the Daylight Saving Bill would not implement any permanent change to single/double summertime. It would simply oblige the Government initially to conduct a cross-departmental analysis of the potential costs and benefits of advancing time by one hour for all or part of the year. Only at that point, and entirely dependent on the results of that analysis, would a three-year experiment of single/double summertime be triggered. Crucially, if the analysis were to conclude that the anticipated benefits were unlikely to be realised, the three-year pilot would not go ahead. Given the very sensible caution outlined in the Bill-I congratulate the hon. Lady on promoting it-it is very difficult to see how any serious objection to it could be maintained, even by those strongly opposed to the scrapping of GMT.
	I may be wrong in my support for single/double summertime. The critics of the Lighter Later campaign may be wrong. Even-this is extremely far-fetched, I confess-John Scott MSP might be wrong. But until we properly analyse all the available data, we will never know. Instead, we will have the same old arguments, twice a year, every year, when the clock changes come around in October and March.
	I have called for this debate because I think that it is right that the Scotland Office sets out its own policy position. It has considerable influence in the Government and could, I imagine, scupper the hon. Lady's Bill if it so chose. I intend to be present on 3 December when the Bill has its Second Reading. I hope that the Minister will also be present to support it so that we can draw a line under this debate once and for all.

David Mundell: I commend the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) for Glasgow South on securing tonight's Adjournment debate. Perhaps his much lamented retirement from blogging has left his nights, light or dark, free for more exciting and productive activities such as this debate. However, given the lateness of the hour, he can be confident that Scotland's nocturnal cyber-nats will be following our every word.
	I respect the hon. Gentleman's views and his support for the introduction of what is generally known as double summertime, which would see the United Kingdom using central European time. He is right to say that not everybody in Scotland is against such a change, but he should acknowledge that most are against it, as the Secretary of State for Scotland has made clear to colleagues in the Government. It is for those supporting change to make and win their case across the UK, including in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that has not happened.

Tom Harris: The Minister has just said that the majority of Scots do not support the measure. On what evidence does he base that assumption?

David Mundell: The Scotland Office has carried out consultation on the Bill, both formal and informal, which supports the view that the majority of Scots do not support the measure at this time.

Tom Harris: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time, given how long I took over my comments. He said that a majority of Scots do not support the change, but he is now talking about consultation and qualitative research. If he is to maintain that a majority of Scots oppose the change, he has to come to the Dispatch Box with evidence of quantitative research by a polling organisation and the Scotland Office. Does he have that information?

David Mundell: Quite the contrary. The hon. Gentleman and those who support the campaign have to win the argument with the public in Scotland, with the body politic and with civic society.

Don Foster: Just to clear up the issue, will the Minister agree to place in the Library all the information to which he has referred, which enabled him to make the claims that he has just made?

David Mundell: As the hon. Gentleman will understand, it is not possible to set out that information in the way that he seeks. What is possible is for those who support the change, such as the hon. Member for Glasgow South, to make their case and win the argument with the people of Scotland. He was very careful not to say that he was speaking on behalf of people in Scotland, because he knows that there is not majority support for the change in Scotland at this time. Rather than argue about polling evidence, which all of us in the body of Scottish politics know is amazingly unreliable, he should concentrate on winning the argument in Scotland if it is what he truly believes.

Malcolm Bruce: I appreciate that the debate is about how Scotland feels, but does the Minister accept that there is a spurious argument that the only objections to the policy are from Scotland? In reality, they will come from all over the UK. I have just checked, and found out that if we had the policy in place, sunrise tomorrow in London would be at 8.24 am, and on Christmas eve it would be at 8.50 am. May I suggest that even Londoners would find that objectionable?

David Mundell: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, the objections are not just from Scotland.
	My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out clearly the position of the Government as a whole, including the Scotland Office: no change can be made without the consensus of the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland as well as Scotland. There can be no specific policy in relation to Scotland, because consensus across the UK is the key factor. Let me make it clear that, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South alluded to, the Government are unequivocally opposed to any differentiated time zone for Scotland.

Ben Bradshaw: Why has the Prime Minister-like the leader of the Liberal Democrats, I am afraid-changed his position on that issue since the general election? He said quite clearly before the election, including to tourism representatives in the south-west, that he favoured the change. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), then the shadow Tourism Minister, explicitly said that he favoured the move. Is this just another broken promise by the coalition?

David Mundell: I certainly accept that the former shadow Tourism Minister is a powerful advocate of the case, but what the Prime Minister said then, and what he says now, is that we welcome an informed debate in all parts of the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might say, on this issue we are all in it together or not at all.

Tobias Ellwood: I am aware that my hon. Friend has been following this issue carefully, but I would ask that his Department show some leadership and a little bit more interest, rather than just saying, "Oh, it's for the others to make the case." There is definite interest in the matter, because Scotland and the entire country can benefit. It is time that the Scotland Office considered the matter in detail and carried out an overt study, rather than one that they are not willing to publish, and then supported a three-year experiment. There would be a massive benefit to Britain, including Scotland, and I hope that the Department will embrace that rather than have a laissez-faire attitude.

David Mundell: I do not accept that it is a laissez-faire attitude to reflect opinion in Scotland within Government. We should welcome the debate and challenge those people who feel strongly about the matter to go out and win that debate in Scotland. It is quite clear that they have not yet done so. I agree that this has to be a factual debate and that it does not have to be an emotional one. Even if we move to double summertime, it will not mean that the United Kingdom has any more daylight hours.

Rebecca Harris: Is the Minister aware that the last three opinion polls conducted in Scotland show that a majority of the Scottish public are in favour? I can give him that evidence tomorrow morning.

David Mundell: I have that evidence, but as my hon. Friend will know, the answer is determined by the question, and many people will say "yes" when they are asked whether they like lighter evenings, but they do not necessarily take on board the full consequences of all the issues in the survey. Although I accept and acknowledge that opinion may be changing in Scotland, I do not believe that the majority of people in Scotland support this change.

Angus MacNeil: Might it not be an idea for those parliamentarians who are passionate advocates of change to resign and force a by-election on this very issue and test the opinion themselves?

David Mundell: That is another interesting suggestion. I was going to agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about the change in wintertime and the fact that the change in October is so much closer to the shortest day than the change in the spring, and that is a live issue that people mentioned to me when I was in the Western Isles 10 days ago. We must also recognise that for people living in the Western Isles and the most northerly parts of Scotland, such a change would have a significant impact on their lives in winter when daylight would not come before 10 am, and that cannot be just glibly set aside.

Don Foster: Given that the Minister is very keen for there to be more accurate data on this information and on having an informed debate, will he make it clear that he and his Department will support the Bill's getting a Second Reading, so that that further research and informed debate can take place?

David Mundell: That will be a matter for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills during the course of the debate, which is to be held on 3 December. I hope that all those Members with an active interest in this matter will ensure that the debate explores all the issues that cannot be explored in the short time that we have available this evening, and that those people who promote the view will continue to gather the evidence that they believe will support their conviction that the benefits of lighter evenings would outweigh the costs of darker mornings. Judging by his contribution, that is the sort of informed debate that the hon. Member for Glasgow South wants to move to, and we would welcome that in this Parliament and in the Scottish Parliament.
	Secondly, a consensus within Scotland will need to be built, to convince the body politic, Civic Scotland and the Scottish public to support them. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) might tell me to the contrary, but I was unaware that the Scottish Labour party in the Scottish Parliament supported such a measure and had promoted it by speaking actively in its favour. I might have been wrong in that regard.
	The hon. Member for Glasgow South highlighted the important issue of road safety and made some telling points. Thankfully, the UK already has one of the best road safety records in Europe, but the UK and Scottish Governments recognise that we can always do more. The introduction of central European time is not a panacea in that regard. Road safety experts acknowledge that other initiatives could have a greater impact. Indeed, even proponents of change acknowledge that the change may result in more road injuries in Scotland during the morning peak.

Tobias Ellwood: I have a lot of respect for my hon. Friend personally and professionally, but I question some of the facts that he is coming out with, because according to the statistics that I have seen, road deaths fell in Scotland during the 1968 to 1971 experiment. The statistics and analysis suggest that if the experiment were repeated, road deaths would fall again. I do not know where he gets his data from, but he needs to share them with us if we are to have a full and frank debate.

David Mundell: I recognise the passion with which my hon. Friend speaks, but his contributions have not necessarily been made from an objective viewpoint in relation to Scotland. The Government want and welcome an informed debate. As has been clearly stated, hon. Members will have the chance to debate this issue on 3 December on Second Reading of the Daylight Saving Bill, which is a private Member's Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). They need no encouragement from me to take that opportunity.
	 House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).